THREE GRAM Sabha resolutions cited by the Andaman and Nicobar islands administration as proof of tribal consent to divert 166.10 sq km of forests for Great Nicobar project had consent of settlers rather than Nicobarese and Shompen tribes, and signatures of at least 60 persons were found on at least two of the three resolutions.
These submissions were made before the Calcutta High Court’s Port Blair bench by the petitioner, former union government secretary Meena Gupta, who has filed a PIL alleging illegalities in the islands administration’s order claiming compliance of Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 for the mega project.
In an order that was made public on Friday, the Calcutta High Court division bench headed by Chief Justice Sujoy Paul overruled the Centre’s objections on the maintainability of this and two other petitions, and agreed to hear them.
In her counter-affidavit rebutting the Andaman and Nicobar administration’s supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has called into question the entire process followed to convene these Gram Sabhas as well as the constitution of the sud-divisional level committee (SDLC) which examines resolutions passed by Gram Sabhas.
It has also underscored that committees required under FRA were constituted only two months before the Gram Sabhas were held, and 14 years after the FRA came into force.
The islands’ administration had submitted in an April 9 affidavit that it had followed due procedure under the Forest Rights Act and obtained tribal consent. It submitted the minutes of three Gram Sabha resolutions held at Campbell Bay, Govind Nagar and Laxmi Nagar on the same day, August 12, 2022.
However, the petitioner has pointed out that the participants of these Gram Sabha meetings were settlers who had no rights or role under the Forest Rights Act. Settlers refer to citizens from the mainland, predominantly servicemen and ex-servicemen, who have lived on the Great Nicobar Islands.
Story continues below this ad
What is Great Nicobar project
India and Brazil share a warm, close and multi-faceted Strategic Partnership, rooted in shared democratic values, close people-to-people ties and expanding cooperation across key sectors. The visit will provide an opportunity for both sides to chart a forward-looking agenda for further strengthening bilateral Strategic Partnership, the MEA said.
The former union secretary provided a table in the counter-affidavit, based upon the administration’s own submissions, which revealed that at least 60 names and signatures appeared in two or more of the three gram sabha proceedings. Three names, in fact, appeared twice in the same resolution.
These proceedings were held at different venues at 10.30 am (Campbell Bay), 11 am (Govind Nagar), and 11.30 am (Laxmi Nagar) on the same date, August 12, 2022.
The language of these resolutions also read identical with a unanimous decision to divert 166.10 sq kms of forests for the “holistic development” of Great Nicobar Island.
“As repeatedly submitted, the Gram Sabhas of the settlers are irrelevant under the FRA and they cannot consent to diversion of forest lands of the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes,” the petitioner’s affidavit stated.
Story continues below this ad
“The respondent has also failed to disclose that the same persons have signed the three resolutions. At least 60 names are repeated. It is submitted that the respondent’s attempt to justify these illegal, irrelevant gram sabha resolutions ought to be deprecated. It does not behove a statutory authority to support a blatant violation of the law,” the affidavit said.
The petitioner has also called the composition of SDLC illegal, as it did not include two members from the Scheduled Tribe community as mandated under FRA, 2006. Referring to the islands administration’s supplementary affidavit, it was pointed out that only one member of the Great Nicobarese community, Barnabas Manju, was part of the SDLC while other two – Rupa Tirkey and Sanjay Ekka — represented Panchayati Raj institutions.
“It is reiterated that the settlers have no role/rights under the FRA…the composition of the SDLC is statutorily mandated and the respondent cannot choose to change it as they deem fit,” the counter-affidavit stated.
The former union secretary has also sought to rebut the claim by the islands administration that the Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti represented the interest of Shompen tribes in key meetings, calling it factually incorrect. It was pointed out that no person or organisation could claim to represent an indigenous tribe, that too a particularly vulnerable tribal group, let alone consent on behalf of the tribal community.
Story continues below this ad
While the islands administration has maintained tribal consent for the project, the tribal council of the Little and Great Nicobar Island had in 2022 revoked its no-objection to the denotification of the tribal reserve. Last July, the council also complained that forest rights had not been settled.
