The National Green Tribunal (NGT) concluded hearings on Friday and reserved its judgment regarding multiple legal challenges against the environmental clearances granted to the ambitious Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project. The tribunal will also rule on a separate plea demanding the complete public disclosure of a high-powered committee report that re-examined the project's approvals.
Sealed Cover Report Sparks Debate
Presided over by Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, a six-member NGT bench heard extensive arguments concerning an interlocutory application (IA) filed by petitioner Ashish Kothari. This application contested the Union government's decision to keep the report of the High-Powered Committee (HPC) confidential. The bench confirmed that its forthcoming order would address this specific IA alongside the main petitions.
The HPC, led by former environment secretary Leena Nandan, was established in April 2023 following an NGT directive. Its mandate was to address persistent and significant deficiencies in the environmental impact assessment of the massive Rs 81,000 crore development project planned for the ecologically fragile Great Nicobar Island.
Arguments for Transparency vs. Government's Stance
During the proceedings, the counsel for petitioner Ashish Kothari presented a vigorous case for making the HPC report public. He argued that the government's refusal to disclose the report, which was submitted to the tribunal in a sealed cover during the October 30 hearing, created an unfair advantage for the Environment Ministry. He described this secrecy as being contrary to the fundamental principles of an open court.
The petitioner's counsel further emphasized that the Centre had failed to provide a valid justification for claiming privilege over the document. He pointed out that over 350 project-related documents, including the master plan and the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report, are already in the public domain, making the confidentiality around the HPC's re-evaluation particularly questionable.
In opposition, the counsel for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) defended the confidentiality, stating that the plea for disclosure was belated. The ministry's counsel asserted, "Whatever was germane in the HPC report is already part of our submissions, everything is there in the counter affidavit...we have submitted that we are not going to be able to submit the HPC report."
Ecological Concerns and Project Siting
Beyond the transparency issue, the petitioner's counsel also concluded arguments on the main batch of petitions challenging the project's clearances. One key challenge revolves around alleged violations of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) norms, arguing that critical components of the project are illegally sited within a designated no-development zone.
To substantiate the ecological threat, the counsel cited the government's own data and reports. He highlighted that the project would directly damage the nesting habitats of endangered species like the leatherback turtle and the Nicobar megapode, as well as destroy sensitive coral ecosystems.
Countering the government's argument that it was aware of the environmental damage and was planning mitigation measures, Kothari's counsel retorted, "We are not asking the ministry to extend protections. I am only saying that the protections already exist, you have recognised it, do not dismantle it surreptitiously to permit your project. The project proponent can do it, not the ministry."
The NGT's reserved order is now highly anticipated, as it will have significant implications for both the future of the mega-project and the principles of transparency in environmental governance in India.
