Key Points
The National Green Tribunal on 16 February 2026 upheld the environmental clearance for the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar mega project, citing its strategic importance and adequate safeguards.
The Tribunal accepted the findings of a High-Powered Committee on issues including coral protection, turtle nesting sites and Coastal Regulation Zone compliance.
Ecological and tribal rights concerns remain under challenge before the Calcutta High Court, with opposition leaders calling the verdict “deeply disappointing.”
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has granted clearance to the ₹81,000-crore Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project, holding that it found no “good ground” to interfere with the environmental clearance (EC) granted in 2022. In its order dated 16 February 2026, the Tribunal emphasised the project’s “strategic importance” and directed authorities to ensure full and strict compliance with EC conditions.
The Bench was headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and included judicial members Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, along with expert members A Senthil Vel, Afroz Ahmand and Ishwar Singh. It disposed of a batch of applications challenging aspects of the EC and alleged violations of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification, 2019.
The Tribunal noted that an earlier Bench in 2023 had already declined to interfere with the clearance but had constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to revisit certain issues. These included protection of coral reef colonies, leatherback turtle nesting sites and allegations that parts of the project fell within ecologically sensitive Coastal Regulation Zone-IA areas where development is prohibited.
The NGT recorded that “adequate safeguards” were built into the environmental clearance and that the remaining concerns had been examined by the HPC. It rejected the contention that the terms of reference given to the HPC were truncated or factually incorrect, observing that the applicants had not pointed out any other substantial issue that ought to have been examined.
The Tribunal framed the matter as one requiring a “balanced approach”. It stated that while development of a port at a strategic location must be considered, it must also be carried out strictly in accordance with the ICRZ Notification, 2019. It held that prohibiting the activity solely on the basis of apprehension would not be justified if adequate safeguards were in place.
On coral reefs, the Tribunal relied on submissions from the Zoological Survey of India and the HPC, which stated that no coral reef exists within the immediate work area of the project. It noted that plans were underway to translocate scattered corals in adjoining areas and directed the Union Environment Ministry to ensure coral protection and regeneration through proven scientific methods. The Ministry was asked to prepare and approve an implementation plan, potentially involving agencies such as the Zoological Survey of India and the National Institute of Oceanography.
Addressing concerns over shoreline erosion, the Tribunal directed that proposed constructions, including foreshore development, must not cause erosion or shoreline change abutting the project area or elsewhere along the island. It underscored that sandy beaches must be protected as they serve as nesting sites for turtles and birds and act as natural buffers.
On the issue of baseline environmental data, the applicants had argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment relied on only one season’s data instead of three. The NGT recorded the government’s submission that three-season data was not required because there were no high erosion sites in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
With respect to Coastal Regulation Zone compliance, the Tribunal accepted the HPC’s finding that no part of the project fell within CRZ-IA areas after ground truthing exercises. It further noted the Centre’s submission that portions of the port falling within CRZ-1A and 1B areas under the proposed master plan would be excluded from the revised master plan.
The NGT also took note of the Union government’s stance that the HPC report contained confidential and privileged information of strategic and defence importance and was therefore not made public. The Tribunal observed that the disclosures made indicated that the project is very important for India from a strategic point of view.
The Great Nicobar project, spread over approximately 166 square kilometres, entails diversion of about 130 square kilometres of forest land and felling of nearly a million trees. It includes an International Container Transshipment Terminal at Galathea Bay, an integrated township, a greenfield international airport with civil and military functions, and a 450MVA gas and solar-based power plant. The project is aimed at creating a strategic and economic hub near the Malacca Strait, a key maritime trade route.
The Tribunal reiterated that the government is bound by the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance. It emphasised specific safeguards for wildlife, including leatherback sea turtles, the Nicobar megapode, saltwater crocodiles, robber crabs and other endemic species. It directed that all measures must be taken to ensure compliance with these conditions.
Congress leader and former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh described the ruling as “deeply disappointing”, stating that there is clear evidence that the project will have disastrous ecological impacts. He argued that the conditions for clearance would do little to address long-term consequences and noted that the matter remains under examination before the Calcutta High Court.
Environmental activist Ashish Kothari, who had challenged the clearance, had raised concerns over coral reef damage, shoreline erosion and the alleged location of parts of the project within prohibited ICRZ-IA zones. The Tribunal held that these concerns had been addressed through earlier proceedings and expert review.
Environmental groups have also argued that the compensatory afforestation proposed against the project. To compensate for the 130 square kilometres of rainforest being cut, the government has proposed that an equivalent number of trees be planted across the Aravalli range in North India, specifically Haryana. Activists have highlighted the asymmetrical nature of the proposal. Further, around 25% of the ‘protected’ forest area in Haryana where the afforestation is set to occur has already been cleared for stone mining by the state government.
The project has also sparked concerns among tribal communities on the island. The Great Nicobar Island is inhabited by the Nicobarese and the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group. Tribal leaders have alleged that they were pressured to surrender ancestral land to facilitate the project and that their rights under the Forest Rights Act have not been properly settled. The government has maintained that all statutory processes, including tribal safeguards, were followed before granting clearances.
In January 2026, tribal chiefs alleged that they were asked to sign surrender certificates without full details of the land involved. They have stated that promises made after their relocation following the 2004 tsunami have not been fulfilled and that they fear permanent loss of ancestral land. Critics have also highlighted that gram sabha approval has not been granted for the project – a necessary prerequisite – and that the concerns of tribal groups have not been adequately addressed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.
While the NGT has now disposed of the batch of applications challenging the environmental clearance, aspects of the project’s forest clearance remain under challenge before the Calcutta High Court and other forums. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were confined to examining violations of broadcasting standards and environmental compliance and did not amount to findings on civil or criminal liability.
The ruling is expected to serve as a reference point for future projects of strategic importance proposed in ecologically sensitive areas. By invoking the need for a “balanced approach”, the NGT has underscored the tension between environmental protection and national security considerations. The next phase of scrutiny is likely to unfold in the higher judiciary, where questions of transparency, cumulative ecological impact and tribal rights continue to be debated.
[DS]
Suggested Reading:
.jpg){kind=link}