For generations, life on Great Nicobar Island has remained largely unchanged. wildlife-rich forests. On peaceful beaches, turtles build their nests. Away from the outer world, the Shompen people are living according to their traditional customs. What will the island look like in the years to come now that ports, airports, and power plants are coming?
The Rs 80,000 crore Great Nicobar Island Development Project has been approved by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which has decided not to contest its environmental clearance. The Tribunal emphasized the strategic importance of the initiative and cited inherent protections. It rejected appeals aimed at delaying the project.

Although this decision removes a significant regulatory barrier, the dispute is still very much alive. The future of Great Nicobar is being closely watched as the political opposition continues to voice their opinions, environmental organizations continue to sound the alarm, and legal disputes are anticipated to unfold in the higher courts.
Debi Goenka, executive trustee of the Conservation Action Trust, which contested the project in the tribunal, called the NGT's ruling "shocking and unfortunate" in an interview with Outlook.
He said that the project will impact one of Asia's major leatherback turtle nesting places and permanently harm Great Nicobar's pristine forests. Additionally, Goenka questioned the tribunal's emphasis on the project's "strategic importance," arguing that environmental courts are not there to evaluate defenses but rather to safeguard ecosystems.

He noted that the island already has a defense facility and that an airport is now being developed as part of the development.
Goenka also criticized the High-Powered Committee's procedure, pointing out that the petitioners' attorneys were not given access to the report, which was provided in a sealed cover. The choice is regrettable. The Calcutta High Court is currently considering our appeal against a previous NGT decision. We hope that it will be adopted quickly," he stated.
The Great Nicobar Project: An Inside Look
The Union Cabinet of India authorized the project in 2021 after it was conceived by NITI Aayog. It aims to make Great Nicobar, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands' southernmost island, a vital hub for Indo-Pacific logistics.An integrated community, a 450-MVA gas and solar-powered power plant, a greenfield international airport with both civil and military uses, and an international container transshipment port near Galathea Bay are all part of it. The Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways will be in charge of the port.

The project, which covers an area of around 166 square kilometers, involves cutting down almost a million trees and redirecting almost 130 square kilometers of forest land. The port, according to the government, will strengthen India's naval position close to the Malacca Strait and lessen its reliance on international transshipment centers like Singapore and Colombo.
Indigenous Communities and the Fragile Ecosystem
With more than 85% of the island covered in tropical rainforest, Great Nicobar is one of India's most ecologically sensitive and biodiverse areas.Because it is located along the same megathrust fault line that caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which altered its coastline, the island is likewise extremely susceptible to seismic activity. Critics caution that extensive building in this delicate, disaster-prone ecosystem may result in long-term environmental harm that mitigation strategies might not be able to completely avoid.
The Nicobarese community and the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, live on Great Nicobar. The project's detractors contend that it runs the risk of upsetting sensitive sociocultural systems and ancestral lands, especially in regions that are still recuperating from the 2004 tsunami.
However, the government insists that clearances were given following professional evaluation and that all legal procedures, including tribal safeguards, have been followed. Even so, there are still concerns about whether the cumulative ecological and societal effects have been adequately handled.

International attention has also been drawn to worries over how the project may affect Indigenous communities. 39 academics from 13 nations had previously warned President Droupadi Mumru in an open letter that moving forward with the development might be "a death sentence" for the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group that depends on the island's rainforest for existence. The authors warned that extensive building could increase the likelihood of "genocidal" outcomes by exposing the semi-isolated society to sickness and irreversible cultural damage.
The deep jungles of the island are home to the Shompen tribe, who have little access to the outside world. According to Goenka, their traditional hunting-gathering lifestyle may be irreversibly disrupted by displacement, habitat loss, or an increase in outsider presence.In response to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav's defense of the proposed infrastructure project, about 70 Indian academics, former bureaucrats, and environmentalists wrote an open letter calling for a reexamination of what they called the project's "severe and irreversible negative implications."
Legal Issues Ahead of the NGT
The 2022 environmental clearance was contested before the NGT by environmental activist Ashish Kothari and others. They contended that parts of the project were located in areas that were forbidden by the 2019 Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification. Along with raising concerns about coastline erosion, disruption to wildlife habitats, and damage to coral reefs, they also questioned the sufficiency of baseline environmental data.

A High-Powered Committee (HPC) led by former Environment Secretary Leena Nandan was established by the NGT in accordance with its 2023 order to examine unresolved issues. The Tribunal's ultimate ruling was based on the committee's findings.
However, due to strategic and confidentiality concerns, the Environment Ministry chose not to release the entire HPC study. The NGT depended on the committee's findings as provided by the Center in an affidavit. The absence of complete information, according to critics, calls into doubt the transparency of environmental governance.
The project's NGT verdict
The Tribunal declared in its final ruling that it could not find any "good ground" to impede the environmental clearance. The HPC's judgment that no portion of the project was located inside an ICRZ that was forbidden was accepted.The NGT emphasized that legally binding protections for wildlife and coastal areas are included in the environmental clearance. It listed particular requirements for safeguarding endemic species, including robber crabs, saltwater crocodiles, the Nicobar megapode, and leatherback sea turtles.
The Tribunal concluded that there are no significant coral reefs in the near project area after considering representations from the Zoological Survey of India. Nevertheless, it instructed the Environment Ministry to use tried-and-true scientific techniques to guarantee coral regeneration and conservation.
Additionally, the Tribunal mandated that construction operations, including foreshore development, not result in the loss of sandy beaches, which operate as natural coastal buffers and nesting places, or shoreline erosion.

The project's immediate regulatory course is now more obvious because the NGT declined to get in. Nonetheless, legal action before the Calcutta High Court guarantees the continuation of judicial review. The next round of the legal battle is probably going to be shaped by issues related to transparency, cumulative environmental damage, tribal rights, and long-term disaster resilience. Now regarded as a seminal case in Indian environmental jurisprudence, the project tested the nation's ability to strike a balance between development, ecological boundaries, indigenous rights, and strategic imperatives in one of its most vulnerable border areas.

"Premeditated Misadventure"
The decision was deemed quite unsatisfactory by Congress. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh contended that clearing conditions cannot lessen systemic environmental effects and that the ruling ignored evidence of lasting ecological harm. He mentioned that the Calcutta High Court is still looking at the case. Sonia Gandhi had previously referred to the endeavor as a "planned misadventure."
Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, who has defended the proposal, has insisted that all approvals were given following a thorough process and expert evaluation. He has also called the project strategically important for India's marine aspirations.