Guwahati: The Little and Great Nicobar Tribal Council has moved the Calcutta High Court’s Port Blair bench seeking to be made a party to an ongoing public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Forest Rights Act (FRA) proceedings for diverting 166 sq km of forest land for the Great Nicobar mega project.

The Centre, through the Environment Ministry, the Tribal Affairs Ministry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration have opposed the application, arguing that it was filed belatedly and seeks to expand the scope of the ongoing litigation.

Council chairperson Barnabas Manju, two village captains and another member of the Nicobarese community have sought to join the case, contending that the community never consented to the diversion of the land and that no Gram Sabha of the tribal community was convened under the FRA to obtain its consent. They have also said the community wants to return to its ancestral lands along the island’s southeastern and western coasts.

The Rs 81,000-crore project includes an integrated township, a transshipment container port at Galathea Bay, a solar and gas-based power plant, and an airport for civilian and military use. A draft master plan also identifies tourism as a key component of the island’s development, alongside a coastal city, service industries and a port-linked financial hub.

The High Court is hearing a set of petitions filed by former Union secretary Meena Gupta. A key challenge concerns the validity of the FRA proceedings, including the process used to convene three Gram Sabhas, the composition of the sub-divisional level committee (SDLC) that examined their resolutions, and the subsequent issuance of the Record of Forest Rights (RoFR) certificate for the diversion of forest land.

The applicants said they approached the High Court after their requests to withdraw the RoFR certificate went unanswered. Issued on August 18, 2022, the certificate stated that the settlement of forest rights under the FRA had been completed to facilitate the project.

The plea alleges that the certificate falsely records the consent of the concerned Gram Sabhas, citing meetings of settled communities in which no Nicobarese were present.

The applicants have also challenged the SDLC’s endorsement of a Gram Sabha resolution bearing Manju’s no-objection signature. According to the plea, Manju was unaware that he had been made a member of the SDLC until he attended its meeting on August 13, 2022, and was not informed of its purpose. The applicants contend that he was not given adequate information to make an informed decision and was not authorised to consent to the diversion on behalf of the entire community.

The plea states that Manju attended the meeting as he would other routine meetings concerning tribal welfare and had received no notice of his appointment to the SDLC.

Under the FRA, the SDLC is responsible for verifying and examining forest rights claims forwarded by Gram Sabhas and preparing a draft RoFR for consideration by the district-level committee. The applicants said Manju subsequently wrote to the administration on November 22, 2022, withdrawing his no-objection to the forest diversion.

The applicants also said the tribal council had repeatedly urged the administration to facilitate the community’s return to its ancestral lands through written representations and oral requests during official visits, including at the project’s environmental impact assessment public hearing.

In an affidavit filed in late September, the Centre and the Union Territory administration sought dismissal of the impleadment application, citing delay and the possibility of expanding the scope of the PIL.

The Directorate of Tribal Welfare of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration argued that Manju could not withdraw his consent to the SDLC decision, invoking the legal principle of approbate and reprobate. It described the withdrawal as “procedurally untenable”.

In its counter-affidavit, the Centre said the RoFR certificate was nearly four years old and the PIL had been pending for two years. Allowing the applicants to join the case at this stage, it argued, could delay the hearing and complicate the proceedings.

The Centre also maintained that the issues raised by the tribal council were already being considered in the pending PIL. If the High Court decided to hear the applicants, their submissions should be confined to issues already before it, without making them parties or allowing them to file separate pleadings, the Centre said.

The Centre and the Union Territory administration had earlier challenged Gupta’s standing to file the PIL on the ground that she was not a resident of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The High Court’s circuit bench overruled those objections and agreed to hear the case.