Forest Rights of Tribals Not Settled for Great Nicobar Project

Why in News?

The Tribal Council of Little & Great Nicobar complained to the Union Tribal Affairs Minister that:
- The Andaman & Nicobar (A&NI) administration falsely claimed that Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 claims were “settled” for diversion of ~13,075 ha of forest land for the ₹72,000 cr Great Nicobar Project.
- In reality, settlement process under FRA not even initiated.

About the Great Nicobar Project

Mega infrastructure plan (₹72,000 cr).
Components: Transshipment port, airport, power plant, township.
Location: Great Nicobar Island, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
Forest land diversion: ~13,075 hectares.
Tribal groups affected: Nicobarese and Shompen (PVTG).

Legal Framework in Conflict

1. Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA)

Recognises rights of forest-dwelling STs and OTFDs.
Requires:
1. Identification & settlement of forest rights.
2. Consent of Gram Sabha before diversion.

2. Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Act, 1956 (PAT56)

Governs tribal areas in A&N Islands.
Administrator has authority to regulate/divert land.
UT administration argued → FRA not needed as PAT56 already protects forests.

⚖️ Conflict:

FRA gives Gram Sabhas + tribal councils a decisive role.
PAT56 centralises power in hands of administrator.

Issues Highlighted

Tribal Consent Questionable
- Govt cited Aug 2022 Gram Sabha approval.
- Nicobarese Council denies being part of meeting.
FRA Rights Not Settled
- Administration falsely certified FRA rights were settled.
- No actual process initiated.
Impact on Vulnerable Tribes
- Nicobarese and Shompen (PVTG) risk displacement & cultural loss.
Environmental Risks
- Large-scale forest diversion in biodiversity hotspot.
- Potential impact on coastal ecology & disaster vulnerability.
Governance & Transparency
- Centre says due process followed; locals contest process.
- Raises issue of free, prior, informed consent (FPIC).

Broader Concerns

Tribal Rights vs. Strategic Development: balancing infrastructure with indigenous survival.
Centre-State-UT Relations: autonomy of UT administration vs FRA compliance.
Environmental Justice: ecological sustainability of mega projects in fragile zones.

Conclusion

The Great Nicobar Project underscores the development versus rights dilemma in India’s tribal regions. While the project has strategic and economic significance, bypassing or misrepresenting the Forest Rights Act (2006) undermines constitutional guarantees of justice, equality, and dignity for indigenous communities. A sustainable way forward lies in ensuring free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), transparent due process, and integration of tribal voices in decision-making. True progress must harmonise strategic development, ecological balance, and protection of vulnerable tribal groups, reaffirming that development cannot come at the cost of rights and identity.