Subscribe
The Union Tribal Affairs Ministry has said that Nicobarese leaders seeking to join a petition challenging the settlement of forest rights on Great Nicobar Island are “neither necessary nor proper parties,” in the case, court documents show. The Nicobarese are one of two major tribes affected by the development of the Island, and primary claimants to forest rights in the area.
An ongoing petition in the Calcutta High Court, filed by former IAS officer Meena Gupta, has challenged the Union government’s claim that rights under the Forest Rights Act (2005) (FRA) were settled on the Island. The FRA recognises the historical rights of tribal and other forest dwelling communities over forest resources, and makes compliance with its statutes necessary in clearing forest land for diversion.
On July 9, 2026, four Nicobarese residents sought to join Gupta’s plea, arguing that government certifications claiming the settlement of forest rights was based on gram sabha consent from non-tribal settler communities. Apart from the Nicobarese and Shompen — a particularly vulnerable and largely uncontacted tribe — the Island is inhabited by families of ex-servicemen from the mainland who were settled on the remote Island from 1969 onwards as part of a state-sponsored scheme.
“This certificate falsely states that the concerned Gram Sabhas have consented to the diversion of forest lands and cites meetings of the Gram Sabhas of the settler community in which no Nicobarese were present,” the impleadment document submitted to the court, seen by Mongabay-India, says. “No Gram Sabha meeting of the tribals was ever convened to discuss the issue of diversion of forest lands for the mega-project,” it adds.
A long-standing demand of the Nicobarese has been to return to their ancestral villages after they were displaced by the 2004 tsunami. Parts of this land will be diverted for the Great Nicobar Island development project.
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs responded by saying the plea “deserves outright rejection” as the tribal leaders were “sleeping over their alleged rights during the entire statutory process.”
Souparna Lahiri, a policy analyst associated with the Climate Land Ambition and Rights Alliance, said that it was surprising for the Tribal Affairs Ministry to “go so starkly against its own beneficiaries.”
“The legitimacy of the Forest Rights Act lies with the participation of the genuine forest dwellers. If they are not included in the gram sabhas, it constitutes a violation of the law,” he said.
The ongoing dispute concerns the role of tribal consent in diverting land for the development project. The Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island, the infrastructure project by the government, includes building a transshipment port, township, greenfield international airport, and solar and gas power plant over 166 square kilometres the Island.
Forest clearance regulations make the recognition and settlement of rights under the FRA a central component of the decision-making process before forest land can be diverted. Under the FRA, forest rights are settled when gram sabhas pass resolutions over individual and community forest rights. A Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC), formed by state or union authorities, is responsible for informing the gram sabhas of their rights and duties, as well as examining the resolutions passed to assess their veracity.
Before 2022, FRA was never initiated on the Island. Reports by the Andaman and Nicobar administration said that the interests of tribals were “fully protected” under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 “by exclusively preserving the area for them, in which they enjoy unfettered rights to use forest products… so no claim as such is settled therefore settlement under FRA [sic].”
Official documents show that the Lieutenant Governor constituted the SDLC through a notification issued on July 26, 2022. Sixteen days later, on August 12, a “special” gram sabha was held and “unanimously resolved” to allow the diversion of 166 sq km of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The SDLC — which included Barnabas Manju, chief of the Great Nicobar Tribal Council — convened the next day, on August 13, and concluded that no rights were being infringed upon by approving the diversion.
On August 16, a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for land diversion with Manju’s signature was appended to the SDLC Minutes. Manju subsequently wrote to the Union Environment Ministry seeking rehabilitation within the ancestral villages, and in November 2022, withdrew consent for the NOC.
“An NOC was read out to Mr. Barnabas, but only in parts, especially those parts that mention the Forest Rights Act and protection of the tribal rights, while completely concealing what forest diversion means, which area is covered under the 160.10 sq km of forest that is being diverted, or explaining what that means for our plans to relocate to our ancestral villages,” the withdrawal letter said.
According to Lahiri, a No Objection Certificate cannot substitute gram sabha consent under the FRA. “A tribal chief himself is not entitled alone to say that we have given a consent for the village. There has to be a quorum and a written decision by the forest gram sabha,” he said.
In court, the Tribal Affairs Ministry said ”Stray copies of correspondence stated to have been marked to various authorities, including to the Hon’ble Minister, do not constitute objections, claims, or appeals in the eye of law.” It added that these objections “were never filed in or presented before any statutory forum, and cannot retrospectively manufacture a grievance that was never ventilated through the machinery which Parliament has provided.”
The impleadment submitted in court by the tribals raises several concerns over the legitimacy of the FRA process followed by the government, however.
It alleges that firstly, Manju was not informed of his appointment to the SDLC except on the day of the meeting itself, and that “he was not given adequate facts to make an informed decision.”
An NOC signed by him does amount to “consent on behalf of the entire Nicobarese community,” making it invalid, the impleadment says. Despite issuing a letter withdrawing the NOC, “no enquiry has been conducted about this till date.”
It also alleges that the failure to include tribal communities in the gram sabha meetings makes the claim that forest rights have been settled on the Island to be “false.”
“Indigenous communities have the first right to their lands, and they cannot be forced to surrender their lands… The manner in which they choose to decide on diversion of their forest lands has been left to the tribal communities by law. This autonomy cannot be wished away because it is inconvenient to a party implementing a project,” the impleadment says.
Though the Union government and Andaman and Nicobar administration maintain that forest rights have already been settled on the Island, the latest annual report by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs doesn’t show any claims as being settled under the FRA on the archipelago as of March 2025).
A draft Tribal Welfare Plan, drafted in October 2025 and shared with the Tribal Council in March 2026, also makes “land survey and FRA clearance” an agenda point for the first six months of the plan’s implementation, indicating pending processes. The plan is still under review.
It also says that displaced tribals “shall be granted access to forest rights” near their new settlements “wherever feasible.” It adds that “In cases where such families are able to maintain access or traditional entry to the forest areas… they shall continue to enjoy their earlier rights over these sources of livelihood, in accordance with existing laws and customary practices.”
“Forest dwelling tribals and communities already have suo moto rights over forest resources. These rights are neither created by the Act nor granted by the government. It is the duty of the government to see that those rights are settled on paper for documentary purposes,” said Lahiri.
The Union Environment Ministry reportedly approached the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings in the FRA case, but this plea was refused on October 5. “Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. When you are talking about tribe cultures in Nicobar ecology. Tribe culture requires constitutional protection,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.
The Calcutta High Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 25 and 26.
This article has been republished with permission from The Mongabay. The original article can be read here.
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.