The Great Nicobar Project: Environment Vs. Development

“You cannot affirm the power plant and condemn the smokestack, or affirm the smoke and condemn the cough.”
Wendell Berry, The Gift of the Good Land, 1981

I. Introduction

Humans are cognitive beings who tend to evolve and construct. This quality has made them pay a heavy cost in the form of environmental degradation. We now eat dirty, drink dirty, and breathe dirty. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century fundamentally altered the relationship between human beings and the natural world. The Great Nicobar Project is one such illustration of this tension. It is not only one of the most prominent political debate topics in contemporary India but also a subject that demands the attention of every citizen, cutting across generations.

II. The Great Nicobar Project

The Great Nicobar Project is a government initiative on Great Nicobar Island, encompassing a port at Galathea Bay, an international airport, a power plant, and a township. Its stated objectives span strategic transportation, defence, and energy security. The project is multifunctional in nature and aims to balance developmental aspirations with sustainability concerns. An analysis of its implications follows.

III. Strategic Significance

A. A Strategic Location in the Indian Ocean
The Indian Ocean is a critical artery for global sea trade, and dominance in this region carries significant weight in world politics. This strategic importance was long overlooked by successive governments. The region serves as a major international sea route axis, with nearly 80 per cent of India’s external trade and 100 per cent of its energy imports passing through it. It is therefore essential for the government to assert and sustain a meaningful presence in this zone.

B. Disaster Management and Climate Resilience
The 2004 tsunami at Andaman and Nicobar shook every Indian national to the core. It demonstrated an urgent need for on-ground disaster management infrastructure. Over 1,310 people perished in the disaster, while over 5,600 were reported missing and are presumed dead. A massive portion of the island was submerged and devastated. This underscores the necessity of establishing robust disaster management operations and having trained officers who can respond rapidly at the site of a disaster.

C. Countering Growing Insecurity in the Indian Ocean
China’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean poses a significant challenge, particularly for India. Its policy known as the “String of Pearls,” a term coined by Booz-Allen-Hamilton in 2004, has enabled China to build influence through Gwadar Port (Pakistan), Hambantota Port (Sri Lanka), Djibouti Port (East Africa), Chittagong (Bangladesh), Kyauk Pyu (Myanmar), and Coco Islands (Myanmar). This strategy encircles India through military bases and trade installations. China’s close alignment with India’s rival, Pakistan, only deepens this geopolitical concern. In response, India has developed its “Necklace of Diamonds” strategy. The Great Nicobar Project can be understood as a significant step within this broader framework. The United States and other countries are also actively seeking presence in this region.

D. A Prospective Defence Enclave
Given the strategic challenges posed by China and other actors, it is imperative for India to establish an efficient military infrastructure in the region. The government is working towards creating a responsive security system that can provide protection swiftly, as relying on aircraft and resources from the Indian mainland would consume both time and resources.

IV. Environmental and Human Rights Concerns

1. Vast-Scale Deforestation
Numerous environmentalists contend that the project will destroy approximately 130 sq. km of tropical rainforest. India’s total tree cover constitutes 3.41% of its geographical area and, when combined with forest cover (21.76%), the combined figure stands at 25.17% (approximately 827,357 sq. km). India is ill-positioned to absorb this scale of rainforest destruction, particularly as it continues to pursue initiatives to increase its forest cover through schemes such as CAMPA (2010), Nagar Van Yojana (2020), and Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam. Despite these efforts, India’s net increase in forest and tree cover over the decade from 2010 to 2021 was a mere 2.5%. The government has proposed compensatory plantation in states such as Haryana and Madhya Pradesh; however, the distinctive biodiversity of the Nicobar rainforest cannot be replicated elsewhere.

2. Heavy Biodiversity Loss
The project poses serious threats to the leatherback sea turtle, which nests at the Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. The Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, designated for marine turtle conservation in 1997, was denotified in 2021 to facilitate the port, directly contradicting India’s Marine Turtle Action Plan (2021).[1] Studies indicate that more than 1.1 million sea turtles were illegally killed or traded between 1990 and 2020. Leatherback turtles, the largest sea turtles in the world, can measure up to seven feet in length and weigh over 971 kg. Owing to human poaching, plastic pollution, and disturbance to nesting sites, only roughly one in a thousand hatchlings survives to adulthood. These turtles are frequently killed by fishing lines, nets, and boat strikes.

3. Loss to the Marine Ecosystem
The development of a transhipment port is considered dangerous for the marine ecosystem, as it risks damaging coral reefs in the region. Serious concerns have been raised about violations of coastal protection regulations. The coastline falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone; however, the government has reportedly not adequately addressed these regulatory requirements. Ship repair activities are also expected to cause damage to the marine ecosystem of the area.

4. Relocation of the Shompen Tribe
The Shompen tribe, a particularly vulnerable tribal group requiring special care and protection, is facing a serious existential crisis. Numbering barely 300, they sustain themselves through subsistence foraging. The project footprint will cover approximately one-third of the island, with about half of the construction area carved out from the reserve that Indian law had formerly set aside for the Shompen and Nicobarese communities. As this reserve has since been de-notified, these communities have lost their right to reoccupy their villages, many of which were already abandoned following the 2004 tsunami. The result is their permanent displacement. The legal procedure has also been called into question, as the mandatory free, prior, and informed consent of these tribes was reportedly not obtained.

5. A Major Epicentre of Earthquakes
A 4.6-magnitude earthquake struck Nicobar Island on 2 February 2026, reinforcing warnings from scientists that the region continues to experience geological stress following the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. Erecting a project worth rupees 72,000 crore on this seismically active island raises serious questions about financial prudence. The islands are classified under Seismic Zone V, designating them among the most earthquake-prone regions in India.

V. Important Judgments Related to the Great Nicobar Project

1. Vanashakti v. Union of India[2]
Environmental Clearances are obligatory approvals granted before the commencement of any project, requiring prior environmental impact assessment. In March 2017, the Government of India introduced a one-time procedure allowing projects that had begun without Environmental Clearance to regularise their operations. This mechanism, known as ex post facto clearance, effectively permitted retrospective legitimisation of illegal commencements.

In 2023, Vanashakti, an environmental NGO based in Mumbai, challenged this mechanism as a serious violation striking at the foundations of environmental law. The Supreme Court agreed, striking down ex post facto clearances on 16 May 2025.

In November 2025, the Supreme Court recalled its May 2025 judgment, holding that the Vanashakti ruling had overlooked earlier decisions, including D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board[3], which had permitted clearances in certain cases. The Court also held that the Vanashakti ruling failed to adequately assess the practical realities of project implementation, noting that many projects had commenced without prior approvals due to procedural delays. In such cases, the Court observed, heavy penalties and compensation may be appropriate, but demolition of projects already underway would itself cause further environmental damage.

This sequence of judgments is particularly significant for the Great Nicobar Project. Within a span of six months, the legal framework governing environmental clearances shifted dramatically. The reversal of the Vanashakti ruling provides the central government a potential pathway to evade prior approval requirements by paying penalties rather than securing advance environmental assessments.

The project also potentially conflicts with the principles laid down in the long-running T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India[4] matter and with the recommendations of the Shekhar Singh Committee (constituted by the Ministry of Environment to examine forest clearance procedures), both of which establish robust standards for forest and environmental protection.

VI. Conclusion

Though the project carries significant strategic merits that compel serious consideration, its environmental consequences cannot be overlooked. The damage this project threatens to inflict upon the ecosystem of Nicobar Island appears to outweigh its developmental advantages. The government must work towards genuinely reconciling these competing interests, offering a more environmentally responsible project in design and execution. Equally, the rights of the indigenous tribal communities must be treated not as an afterthought but as a constitutional imperative, ensuring that development proceeds along a path that respects both ecology and human dignity.

References

[1] Drishti IAS, ‘Concerns with Great Nicobar Island Project’ (Drishti IAS, 7 February 2026) accessed 7 February 2026.
[2] Vanashakti v Union of India [2025] SCC Online SC 1139.
[3] D Swamy v Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [2022] SCC Online SC 1238.
[4] TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 (proceedings ongoing).