TRIBAL RIGHTS AND THE GREAT NICOBAR ISLAND (GNI) PROJECT

The Statutory “Shields”

These laws form the primary defense against the exploitation of the Shompen (PVTG) and the Nicobarese tribes.

• • Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (PAT): This is the foundational law for the islands. It allows the administration to declare areas as “Tribal Reserves” where entry, land acquisition, or trade by outsiders is strictly prohibited.
    • Project Context: In 2022-2024, approximately 130 sq. km of Tribal Reserve was de-notified for the GNI project. Legal critics argue that while the PAT allows the Administrator to alter reserve boundaries, such de-notification must not compromise the tribes’ survival.
  • Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006:
    • This act recognizes the Community Forest Rights (CFR) and Habitat Rights of forest-dwelling tribes. Crucially, it mandates that Gram Sabha (Village Council) Consent must be obtained before any forest land is diverted for non-forest use.
    • Controversy: In 2025–2026, the Nicobarese Tribal Council alleged that the administration falsely certified that FRA rights had been settled. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently (February 2026) cleared the project but insisted on strict compliance with these conditions.

Institutional Framework

Policy Frameworks

Specific policies dictate the “Rules of Engagement” between the project and the tribes.

• • Shompen Policy (2015): * This policy emphasizes the “Integrity of the Shompen” and mandates that large-scale projects must be reviewed by an Empowered Committee to ensure the tribe’s health and territory are not jeopardized.
    • It promotes a policy of “Minimal Interference” to prevent the spread of diseases to which the tribe has no immunity.
  • Jarawa Policy (2004): While primarily for the Andaman tribes, its principles of protecting the “social and cultural identity” of indigenous groups inform the overarching strategy in Nicobar.

Constitutional Provisions

The ultimate authority over these lands rests with the President of India.

• • Article 244(2) & Schedule VI: Provides for the administration of tribal areas. While Nicobar is governed by the Lieutenant Governor, the constitutional spirit demands that tribal autonomy and land rights remain paramount.
  • Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) Status: The Shompen’s status as a PVTG grants them a “higher tier” of protection under Indian law, theoretically making their displacement legally and ethically much more difficult than that of other groups.

The current legal conflict centers on a “clash of mandates.” The PAT Regulation (1956) gives the government power to de-notify land, but the Forest Rights Act (2006) gives the Gram Sabha the power to say “No.”

HIGH-POWERED COMMITTEE (HPC) VS. TRIBAL COUNCILS

The effectiveness of a High-Powered Committee (HPC) versus the traditional authority of Tribal Councils is one of the most polarized debates in Indian environmental and indigenous law today.

As of April 2026, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has officially cleared the Great Nicobar Project, largely relying on the findings of the HPC it commissioned in 2023. However, this “top-down” monitoring model faces significant criticism when compared to the “bottom-up” authority of Tribal Councils.

The Case for the High-Powered Committee (HPC)

The NGT’s logic in creating the HPC was to provide a centralized, expert-driven oversight that balances environmental science with national security.

• • Multi-Disciplinary Expertise: The HPC includes representatives from the Ministry of Environment, NITI Aayog, and specialized institutes (ZSI, WII). The government argues that only such a body can oversee complex technical tasks like coral translocation or large-scale reforestation.
  • Strategic Integration: Because the project is tied to the Malacca Strait and national defense, the HPC allows the government to handle “confidential and privileged information” that it argues cannot be discussed in public village squares.
  • Unified Enforcement: The HPC acts as a single point of accountability for the dozens of conditions set in the Environmental Clearance (EC).

The Case for Tribal Councils

Critics and indigenous advocates argue that the HPC is a “dilution” of the legal powers granted to the Nicobarese and Shompen Tribal Councils under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.

• • Lived Experience vs. Satellite Data: Tribal Councils argue that “ground-truthing” by a committee in New Delhi cannot replace the ancestral knowledge of those who have lived on the island for millennia.
  • Consent vs. Consultation: Under the FRA, the Gram Sabha (Village Council) has the power of Consent—the right to say “No.” A High-Powered Committee, by contrast, only offers Consultation, which can be overridden by the State.
  • Conflict of Interest: A major criticism of the HPC is that its members are often from the same ministries that granted the original clearances. This creates a “judge, jury, and executioner” scenario where the government monitors itself.

The Current Standoff (April 2026)

The debate has reached a fever pitch this month due to a new Draft Relocation Plan reported on April 4, 2026.

• • The Contradiction: While the HPC and the government have consistently stated there would be “no displacement” of tribes, the emergence of a relocation plan for Nicobarese families has led Tribal Councils to allege they were “coerced” into initial agreements.
  • Legal Challenge: The Calcutta High Court is currently hearing petitions where Tribal Councils are seeking to re-assert their authority, arguing that the HPC’s report—which remains largely secret for national security reasons—cannot legally substitute the transparent consent of the indigenous people.

The most effective model is arguably a Hybrid Approach, but that is not what currently exists. Many legal scholars suggest that the HPC should provide the scientific data, but the Final Approval should remain with the Tribal Councils.