Introduction
The Great Nicobar Project is a strategic initiative by India which aims to strengthen the country’s maritime connectivity and presence in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It represents a defining nexus where India’s strategic aspirations collide with the profound ecological and indigenous vulnerabilities of the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago.1 The project holds significant importance for India’s presence in the Indo-Pacific region. The Government emphasises the island’s proximity, about 40 nautical miles, to the East–West international shipping route, which passes the island on its way to the Strait of Malacca, a crucial maritime chokepoint.2 To make room for the project, however, a large area of forest must be cleared. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change told the Rajya Sabha in August 2023 that an estimated 9.64 lakh trees would be felled in the forest area earmarked for development.3 The Government’s account of May 2026 counts 18.65 lakh trees in the 130.75 sq km of forest land to be diverted, of which a maximum of 7.11 lakh are expected to be felled, in phases.4 This pristine tropical forest houses endemic species, and the island’s coast includes key nesting grounds of the vulnerable leatherback sea turtle.5
Under the project, the Government plans to transform the island into a major transshipment, logistics and military hub, along with an urban township. The components of the programme also include a dual-use international airport with civil and military facilities and a gas and solar-based power plant to ensure energy self-sufficiency for the new infrastructure. The cost of the project has been reported at between ₹72,000 crore and ₹92,000 crore, roughly $8–10 billion,6 and it is to be developed in three phases running from 2025 to 2047.7 The initiative would help India in maritime trade, national security and its Indo-Pacific strategy, but it continues to face controversy over the ecological fragility of island ecosystems.
This article examines the conflict between infrastructural development and ecological protection. It analyses the constitutional environmental obligations involved, including the jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Constitution.8 It evaluates the project against the principle of sustainable development9 and assesses the legality of its environmental clearances.10 It explores the intricate balance between economic growth and environmental justice.
Developmental imperatives under the Great Nicobar Mega Project
Large infrastructure projects frequently involve a tension between environmental and developmental priorities.11 In debates about economic growth, national development and environmental protection, policymakers are often required to balance economic objectives against environmental sustainability. The Great Nicobar Project is no exception and has faced similar controversy. The Government justifies the project as a transformative initiative, necessary for strengthening India’s economic, maritime and defence presence in the Indo-Pacific.12 Before examining the economic and ecological implications of the project, therefore, it is necessary to understand the developmental rationale underlying it.
A. Strategic economic interests and infrastructure expansion
India relies heavily on foreign ports such as Colombo and Singapore for its transshipment cargo. Ports outside India handle around 75% of India’s transshipment cargo, at an estimated annual revenue loss of $200–220 million.13 The Government has argued that this dependence causes economic leakage and strategic dependence.14 The initiative also aims to strengthen India’s blue economy, which the World Bank describes as the sustainable use of ocean resources to boost economic growth, improve livelihoods and create jobs while preserving marine ecosystems.15 A further rationale is regional economic development through employment generation, increased investment in the island territories, and greater connectivity with the countries and markets of Southeast Asia. India also stands to gain in trade competitiveness through reduced delays and costs in cargo handling and shipping.
B. Geopolitical and maritime security imperatives in the Indo-Pacific
India’s Indo-Pacific strategy is a foreign-policy framework promoting a free, open and inclusive region while balancing partnerships with the Quad, Southeast Asia and the West. It is also widely seen as a means of countering Chinese dominance through a rules-based maritime order. Globally, the Indo-Pacific is becoming increasingly important as the centre of geopolitical and economic activity: by commonly cited estimates, the region accounts for more than 60% of global GDP and about 65% of the world’s population.16 This growth makes it all the more necessary for India to monitor the sea lines of communication (SLOCs) and trade routes, which are critical to the stability of global supply chains.17 The increasing naval activity of China in the Indian Ocean also makes such an intervention important for India to maintain a strategic balance.18 Island infrastructure such as the Great Nicobar Project is not only a strategic asset for surveillance and maritime preparedness, but can simultaneously support disaster relief, humanitarian assistance and coast guard operations.
Ecological impacts and indigenous vulnerabilities
Mega infrastructure projects are often criticised for the irreversible ecological damage they cause and for the large carbon footprint and emissions they leave behind. Islands in particular are highly vulnerable and sensitive ecosystems because of their geographical isolation and unique biodiversity.19 Even a slight invasion of other species or a shift in climate can cause irreversible environmental damage and the loss of endemic species. Great Nicobar is a pristine island ecosystem within the Nicobar Islands, India’s only territory in the Sundaland global biodiversity hotspot, and it houses many endemic and rare species of flora and fauna.
A. Biodiversity loss, forest diversion, and ecological fragility
The Great Nicobar project involves diverting 130.75 sq km of pristine tropical rainforest, which requires approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 198020 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.21 Great Nicobar is, however, an ecologically sensitive and globally recognised area. The Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve has formed part of UNESCO’s World Network of Biosphere Reserves under the Man and the Biosphere Programme since 2013.22 Campbell Bay National Park and Galathea National Park are protected under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.23 The tribal population, including the Shompen and the Nicobarese, is protected by restrictions on non-tribal access under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956.24
Constitutional environmental jurisprudence has enabled the judiciary to integrate environmental protection directly into the Constitution’s foundations, notably Article 21.25,26 Through this jurisprudence, key legal principles have evolved that now guide environmental governance. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle to be essential features of sustainable development and part of the environmental law of the country.27 In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India,28 the Supreme Court has, since 1996, issued continuing directions for the protection of forests in the nature of a “continuing mandamus”.
B. Indigenous habitat degradation and tribal rights concerns
Great Nicobar Island is home mainly to two indigenous communities, the Shompen and the Nicobarese. The Shompen are recognised as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), a classification that marks them out for special protection and targeted welfare measures.29 The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (the Forest Rights Act) also recognises community rights and, for primitive tribal groups, rights of habitat and habitation over their forest lands.30
Constitutional provisions such as Article 21,31 which protects the right to life and livelihood,32 and Article 46,33 which directs the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, in particular the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation, play a key role in safeguarding the traditional habitation and cultural identity of the tribes.34 The Shompen Policy, 2015, as the Government itself describes it, requires large-scale development proposals to prioritise the welfare and integrity of PVTGs and to follow a structured consultation process.35 Under the Forest Rights Act, the forest rights of tribal communities must be recognised, and the Supreme Court has upheld the community’s voice in decisions to divert forest land. In Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, it directed that the gram sabhas concerned decide whether the proposed mining would affect their religious, cultural and other rights, and that the Ministry take its final decision on the forest clearance in the light of their decisions.36 Article 338A(9) of the Constitution separately requires the Union to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Tribes.37 The Nicobarese and the Shompen have alleged that their rights over the forest land earmarked for the project have not been settled; the Government states that the project has secured a no-objection certificate from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs with due adherence to the Forest Rights Act.38
Constitutional environmentalism and sustainable development jurisprudence
Constitutional environmentalism refers to the integration of environmental rights, duties and sustainability principles into the supreme law of a nation.39 Constitutions worldwide, and India’s in particular, impose duties on the State and on citizens to protect ecology, wildlife and forests. The Indian judiciary, through its expansive interpretation of fundamental rights, especially Article 21,40 has recognised a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.41 Article 48A42 of the Constitution directs the State to endeavour to protect and improve the environment, while Article 51A(g)43 makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. In the absence of these constitutional principles, mega infrastructure projects such as the Great Nicobar development would be evaluated primarily on economic and strategic metrics, with limited regard to environmental protection.44
Article 21 of the Constitution was originally interpreted narrowly.45 The right acted as a safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention, fulfilling its purpose of protecting life and personal liberty. It was only through continuous judicial interpretation that Article 21 reached its present form as a constitutional anchor encompassing the rights necessary for a dignified human existence.46 A series of progressive rulings between 1985 and 1991 brought the right to a clean and healthy environment within the scope of Article 21. Decisions such as Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh,47 together with the extensive environmental litigation brought by the pioneering environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta, led to environmental issues being treated as violations of fundamental rights.
Environmental clearance is the mandatory approval of the Government required before a project is set up, expanded or modernised, granted after an assessment of its impact on the environment. Such clearances are subject to judicial review, in which specialised tribunals and courts examine whether the approval granted to a project is lawful, rational and procedurally correct. The Great Nicobar Project has so far withstood such review before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). On 3 April 2023, a special bench of the NGT declined to interfere with the forest clearance and found the project “by and large” compliant, but constituted a High-Powered Committee to revisit the environmental clearance in the light of unanswered deficiencies, concerning among other things the threat to coral colonies, the use of only one season’s data for the impact assessment, and the location of part of the project in a CRZ IA area, where a port is prohibited.48 On 16 February 2026, the NGT disposed of further applications challenging the clearance, finding no good ground to interfere and directing full and strict compliance with the clearance conditions.49 The project’s compliance with the principles of Article 21 nevertheless remains widely debated. The Government of India maintains that adequate safeguards protect both tribal livelihoods and the environment, and that the project, which has withstood judicial scrutiny before the NGT, integrates environmental safeguards with strategic and national objectives.50 Critics contend that the Tribunal relied on the project’s strategic importance rather than independently examining the issues raised.51
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.52 Its framework combines environmental protection, social inclusion and economic growth. The precautionary principle, which forms part of Indian environmental law, requires that an activity which threatens the environment be prevented.53 The principle is generally traced to West German environmental law, and it was formally integrated into the Indian legal system in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India.54 The principle of intergenerational equity, also foundational in environmental law, stresses the obligation of the present generation to preserve and improve the quality of life and the environment for future generations.55 It became an established part of Indian law in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products.56
These environmental principles must be applied in assessing the ecological impact of the Great Nicobar Project. Critics argue that the large-scale clearance of rainforest and the disturbance of fragile coastal zones could violate them. In response, the Government points out that 65.99 sq km of the project area will be retained as green zones with no tree felling, preserving ecologically sensitive parts of the island.57 To satisfy the social limb of sustainable development, strong welfare mechanisms would be required to protect the Shompen and Nicobarese communities.
Synthesis, conclusion and the way forward
The Great Nicobar Project has emerged as a site of conflict between infrastructural development and ecological protection. The constitutional concerns centre on the right to a clean and safe environment under Article 21 and the rights of the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese, while the economic considerations prioritise development in trade and national security. Ecologists criticise the project for the threat it poses of biodiversity loss, deforestation and vulnerability to disasters.
Development is crucial to the national economy and to national security. Constitutional environmental obligations, however, cannot be compromised to fulfil developmental goals. Such projects and plans should be guided and governed by the key principles of environmental law, such as sustainable development, and development plans should comply with Article 21 and the environmental jurisprudence built upon it.
To achieve this balance, the Government must strengthen environmental impact assessment and independent scientific review. Meaningful consultation with the indigenous communities on the development plans should be ensured. Biodiversity conservation and habitat restoration measures should be adopted to minimise ecological damage, and periodic judicial monitoring should be ensured. The legacy of the Great Nicobar Project will be measured not by the infrastructure it creates, but by whether it demonstrates that constitutional environmentalism and development can co-exist.
*****
Footnotes
1. See Lakshmi Ravinder Nair, All Eyes on the Island: A Book Review of The Great Nicobar Betrayal, 16 J. Threatened Taxa 25637 (2024), https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9324.16.7.25637-25638.
2. Press Info. Bureau, Gov’t of India, Great Nicobar Project: Strategic Importance, Sustainable Development 1–2 (May 1, 2026), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?id=158406&ModuleId=3®=3&lang=2, https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2026/may/doc202651860401.pdf.
3. Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1648, Trees Felled for Great Nicobar Project (answered Aug. 3, 2023) (answer of Ashwini Kumar Choubey, Minister of State, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) (India), https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/260/AU1648.pdf?source=pqars (adding that about 15% of the development area would remain green and open space, so that actual felling would be less than 9.64 lakh).
4. Press Info. Bureau, Gov’t of India, Great Nicobar Project: FAQs 2 (May 1, 2026), https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2026/may/doc202651861901.pdf (2.79 lakh trees in Phase I (2025–2035), 3.41 lakh in Phase II (2036–2041) and 0.91 lakh in Phase III (2042–2047)).
5. Ishika Ramakrishna, Massive Infrastructure Project Proposed by Central Government Threatens Great Nicobar Island, Frontline (Oct. 20, 2022), https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/massive-infrastructure-project-proposed-by-central-government-threatens-great-nicobar-island/article65991977.ece.
6. India’s Rs 72,000 cr Great Nicobar Project Aims to Be the Jebel Ali of the East, Says Maritime Historian, Business Today (Oct. 10, 2025), https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/indias-rs-72000-cr-great-nicobar-project-aims-to-be-the-jebel-ali-of-the-east-says-maritime-historian-497778-2025-10-10; Vitasta Kaul & Vedaant Lakhera, National Green Tribunal Clears Great Nicobar Island Project Despite Ecological and Tribal Concerns, Frontline (Feb. 18, 2026), https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/great-nicobar-project-ngt-clearance-environmental-concerns-india/article70648421.ece (₹92,000 crore).
7. Press Info. Bureau, Strategic Importance, supra note 2, at 3.
8. India Const. art. 21.
9. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 (India).
10. Ministry of Env’t & Forests, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, S.O. 1533(E) (Sept. 14, 2006) (India).
11. See Jahanvi Mishra & Abhishek Verma, Balancing Growth and Sustainability: Environmental Diplomacy as the Key to India’s Climate Future, 12 Int’l J. Rsch. Applied Sci. & Eng’g Tech. 1276 (2024), https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2024.59049.
12. Press Info. Bureau, Strategic Importance, supra note 2, at 5; Press Info. Bureau, FAQs, supra note 4, at 1.
13. Maritime Hub: On the Vizhinjam Port, The Hindu (May 6, 2025), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/maritime-hub-on-the-vizhinjam-port/article69537588.ece; Ministry of Ports, Shipping & Waterways, Gov’t of India, Maritime India Vision 2030 54 (2021), https://shipmin.gov.in/sites/default/files/MIV%202030%20Report.pdf.
14. Press Info. Bureau, Strategic Importance, supra note 2, at 2.
15. World Bank, What Is the Blue Economy? (June 6, 2017), https://web.archive.org/web/20240107123918/https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2017/06/06/blue-economy (“The Blue Economy is sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and jobs, while preserving the health of marine and coastal ecosystem.”); see generally Ministry of Ports, Shipping & Waterways, supra note 13.
16. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, India’s Vision of the Indo-Pacific, Speech at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok ¶ 5 (Aug. 18, 2022), https://embassyofindiabangkok.gov.in/listview/MTE5OA (describing the Indo-Pacific as “home to more than 64% of global population” that “contributes over 60% of global GDP”).
17. Indian Navy, Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy (Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy) 2015).
18. Press Info. Bureau, FAQs, supra note 4, at 1.
19. See Yuan Chi, Jingkuan Sun & Tian Li, Evaluation on the Uninhabited Island Ecological Sensitivity Based on Unique Features, Various Disturbances, and Ecological Conditions, 89 J. for Nature Conservation 127118 (2026), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2025.127118.
20. The Forest (Conservation) Act, No. 69 of 1980, India Code (1980) (renamed the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, No. 15 of 2023).
21. Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, supra note 10.
22. UNESCO, Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve, India, https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/aspac/great-nicobar (last visited Oct. 13, 2026) (year of nomination 2013).
23. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, No. 53 of 1972, India Code (1972).
24. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, No. 3 of 1956, India Code (1956).
25. India Const. art. 21.
26. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 (India).
27. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, supra note 9.
28. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 (India) (order of Dec. 12, 1996); see also T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1 (India) (net present value payable on the diversion of forest land).
29. Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Gov’t of India, Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs); see also Press Info. Bureau, Strategic Importance, supra note 2, at 5.
30. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, No. 2 of 2007, India Code (2007), § 3(1)(b), (e).
31. India Const. art. 21.
32. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 (India).
33. India Const. art. 46.
34. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191 (India).
35. Press Info. Bureau, Strategic Importance, supra note 2, at 5.
36. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476 (India).
37. India Const. art. 338A(9).
38. Kaul & Lakhera, supra note 6; Press Info. Bureau, FAQs, supra note 4, at 3.
39. James R. May & Erin Daly, Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism (U.N. Env’t Programme 2017), https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/judicial-handbook-environmental-constitutionalism.
40. India Const. art. 21.
41. See M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 (India); Subhash Kumar, supra note 26.
42. India Const. art. 48A.
43. India Const. art. 51A(g).
44. See generally Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, supra note 9.
45. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 (India).
46. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 (India).
47. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652 (India).
48. Conservation Action Trust v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Appeal Nos. 29–32 of 2022 (EZ), ¶¶ 29, 32–33 (Nat’l Green Trib. E. Zone Bench Apr. 3, 2023) (India), reproduced in Application of Ashish Kothari, annex A2, at 137–200 (Nat’l Green Trib. E. Zone Bench, Apr. 3, 2024), https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/news_updates/1723457118.pdf.
49. Ashish Kothari v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, O.A. Nos. 93/2024/EZ & 95/2024/EZ and M.A. No. 23/2024/EZ in Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ, ¶ 58 (Nat’l Green Trib. E. Zone Bench Feb. 16, 2026) (India), https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/gen_pdf_test.php?filepath=L25ndF9kb2N1bWVudHMvbmd0L2Nhc2Vkb2MvanVkZ2VtZW50cy9LT0xLQVRBLzIwMjYtMDItMTYvMTc3MTIyMTc1MjE1Njg4MjM5MDQ2OTkyYjJmOGJlYzk2LnBkZg%3D%3D; see also Kaul & Lakhera, supra note 6; Simrin Sirur, Green Tribunal Rules in Favour of Great Nicobar Island Project, Citing Adequate Safeguards, Mongabay India (Feb. 17, 2026), https://india.mongabay.com/2026/02/green-tribunal-rules-in-favour-of-great-nicobar-island-project-citing-adequate-safeguards/.
50. Press Info. Bureau, FAQs, supra note 4, at 3–4.
51. Kaul & Lakhera, supra note 6 (reporting the views of the environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and the environmentalist Debi Goenka).
52. World Comm’n on Env’t & Dev., Our Common Future 43 (1987); see also Int’l Inst. for Sustainable Dev., Sustainable Development, https://www.iisd.org/mission-and-goals/sustainable-development (last visited July 1, 2026).
53. Devendra Shaligram & Suyash Bansal, Precautionary Principle and Its Application in Indian Judiciary, 5 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 420, 420 (2022), https://pure.jgu.edu.in/id/eprint/3682/1/Precautionary-Principle-and-its-Application-in-Indian-Judiciary.pdf.
54. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, supra note 9.
55. Raminder Singh Romi & Simran Jit Kaur Basra, Intergenerational Equity in Environmental Law: Legal Perspectives, Challenges and Future Directions, 3 The Academic (2025), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18230318.
56. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 6 SCC 363 (India).
57. Press Info. Bureau, Strategic Importance, supra note 2, at 4; Press Info. Bureau, FAQs, supra note 4, at 2.