The Supreme Court on October 5 declined to interfere with the Calcutta High Court proceedings and asked it to hear the connected Great Nicobar PILs on fixed dates.
What Happened
The Supreme Court on October 5, 2026 declined to entertain the Union of India’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order concerning the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar Island infrastructure project. According to LiveLaw, the bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
The Court noted that the matter is already pending before the High Court, with the lead case fixed for hearing on November 25 and 26, 2026. Rather than interfere at this stage, the Supreme Court asked the High Court to proceed with the matter on the dates already fixed.
The Supreme Court also directed the High Court to take the necessary steps to complete pleadings in the connected matters and endeavour to hear them on those dates. Both sides assured the Supreme Court of their cooperation in the proceedings, according to LiveLaw.
The Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, questioned the maintainability of the PIL and submitted that the issue was of great national importance. Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar, appearing for a tribal council impleaded in the matter, submitted that the case concerned Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups and that a PIL was therefore maintainable.
Justice Bagchi observed that the High Court had already ruled on maintainability and that the question of how far the public interest survives was for the High Court to decide. The CJI also indicated that the Supreme Court would request the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to take up the matter at the earliest, according to LiveLaw.
Background & Context
The dispute began before the Calcutta High Court, where a retired IAS officer, Meena Gupta, challenged various governmental actions connected with the Great Nicobar development project. The PILs allege violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, as well as issues concerning the reduction of eco-sensitive buffer zones around national parks.
In May 2026, the Calcutta High Court upheld the maintainability of the PILs. The court record shows that the Union had objected that Gupta, being a permanent resident of Hyderabad, lacked locus standi to challenge actions concerning a project in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Union also argued that the project involved infrastructure of national importance and that the tribal communities for whose benefit the PILs were filed were not parties to the proceedings.
Gupta relied on her longstanding association with tribal affairs and the Islands. According to the High Court record, she had served as Secretary in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and had been involved in the finalisation of the legislation that became the Forest Rights Act. The record also notes her earlier connection with the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The High Court rejected the preliminary objection on locus standi. It referred to Rule 56 of the applicable rules, which permits a member of the public to approach the court where persons or classes of persons facing poverty, helplessness, disability or social or economic disadvantage are unable to approach the court themselves. It also relied on Supreme Court decisions including People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal.
The High Court also distinguished an earlier case concerning a PIL against West Bengal’s sand policy, holding that the petitioner’s particular connection with the subject matter made the factual setting different. It further observed that a project involving substantial expenditure and national importance is not, merely for that reason, beyond judicial review.
The Union subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging that order. The Supreme Court’s October 5 decision does not determine whether the allegations under the Forest Rights Act are made out. Those issues remain pending before the High Court.
Key Details
- Court/Forum: Supreme Court of India, hearing the Union’s challenge to the Calcutta High Court’s order.
- Date: Supreme Court hearing on October 5, 2026; the Calcutta High Court ruling was in May 2026; the lead High Court matter is fixed for November 25 and 26, 2026.
- Case: Union of India v. Meena Gupta & Ors., Diary No. 44246/2026, according to LiveLaw.
- Law involved: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
- Parties: The Union of India is the petitioner before the Supreme Court. Meena Gupta, a retired IAS officer, and others are respondents.
- Counsel: Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared for the Union. Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar appeared for a tribal council.
- Current status: The Supreme Court has declined to interfere. The High Court is expected to proceed with the pending matter, with the lead case fixed for November 25 and 26. The allegations concerning the Forest Rights Act remain untested.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court’s order is principally procedural. It does not decide the merits of the allegations concerning the Forest Rights Act, nor does it finally determine the locus standi question.
For law students and practitioners, the more significant point is how the Court approached a challenge to maintainability while the substantive proceedings were already scheduled before the High Court. By declining to interfere at this stage and directing the High Court to proceed on the fixed dates, the Supreme Court has left the pending questions to the forum already seized of the matter.
The case also keeps an important PIL question alive: whether a petitioner who does not reside in the affected area can maintain proceedings concerning vulnerable communities. The Calcutta High Court answered that question in the affirmative on the facts before it, relying on the petitioner’s connection with tribal affairs and the Islands and on the applicable PIL rules. That reasoning remains the High Court’s position; the Supreme Court’s October 5 order should not be read as an endorsement of it.
Similarly, the High Court’s observation that national importance does not place a project beyond judicial review remains relevant to the pending proceedings, but the Supreme Court has not adopted or rejected that proposition in the order reported here.
The next substantive stage therefore remains before the Calcutta High Court. The fixed November hearings will determine how the pending challenges progress, but the present Supreme Court order itself makes no finding on whether the allegations are ultimately established.
Closing
The Great Nicobar litigation now returns to the Calcutta High Court, with the lead matter fixed for November 25 and 26. For now, the Supreme Court has chosen not to intervene in the High Court proceedings, leaving the questions of maintainability and the underlying Forest Rights Act allegations for the pending proceedings.
Opportunities don’t wait. Neither should you.
Join 1 Lakh+ law students connected with Lexibal and stay updated with internships, opportunities, competitions and important updates.
Join WhatsApp Channel
