In fragile ecosystems like Great Nicobar, constitutional wisdom lies in ensuring that transformation is ecologically sustainable, socially just

On February 16, 2026, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) upheld the environmental clearances granted to the Great Nicobar Project. The ruling clears the way for a trans-shipment port, airport expansion, township development and allied infrastructure. But it leaves unresolved a deeper constitutional question: can the large-scale transformation of a fragile island proceed without first establishing its ecological and anthropological limits?

Great Nicobar is not vacant territory awaiting strategic fulfilment. It is one of India’s most biologically distinctive and culturally sensitive regions. It hosts the globally vulnerable leatherback sea turtle, the endemic Nicobar megapode, saltwater crocodiles, robber crabs and the Nicobar macaque. These are not peripheral species; they are ecological sentinels of beaches, mangroves and primary rainforest systems that have evolved over millennia in relative isolation.

The island is also home to the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), and the Nicobarese community, whose lives are interwoven with forest and coast. The ecological and indigenous questions are not separate; they are structurally linked.

NGT’s reasoning is anchored in procedural compliance: whether statutory approvals were obtained, expert bodies consulted and conditions imposed. Yet Indian environmental jurisprudence has long required substantive scrutiny beyond procedural adequacy.

In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court embedded the precautionary principle in Indian law. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000), sustainable development was articulated as a balancing doctrine. In Goa Foundation v Union of India (2014), inter-generational equity was reaffirmed as a binding norm. These principles require that where irreversible ecological or social harm is plausible, the burden shifts to the project proponent to demonstrate environmental safety.

Island ecosystems and indigenous societies warrant heightened scrutiny.

Ecological thresholds

Great Nicobar’s beaches are among the most important nesting habitats for leatherbacks in the Indian Ocean. Artificial lighting, dredging and increased shipping traffic are known to disrupt nesting cycles and disorient hatchlings. The Nicobar megapode depends on undisturbed forest floor ecology; habitat fragmentation and construction-related vibration may impair breeding viability over time. Mangrove degradation would affect saltwater crocodile habitats and shoreline stability in a seismically active zone.

Environmental impact assessments typically document species presence but less frequently assess long-term population viability or ecological thresholds. Infrastructure components assessed in isolation, such as the port, airport and township, may appear manageable. Their cumulative ecological footprint may not be.

Indigenous survival and demographic shock

The project envisions a significant influx of population to support economic activity. For small indigenous communities such as the Shompen, rapid demographic change can itself pose profound risks. History shows that contact-induced disease, cultural disruption and land displacement have disproportionately affected small island populations. The NGT acknowledged that portions of the project area overlap with notified tribal reserves and recorded that statutory safeguards have been imposed. However, its analysis largely remained within the framework of regulatory compliance. It did not substantially examine whether large-scale demographic expansion and secondary infrastructure are compatible with the long-term cultural survival of a PVTG, or whether consultation processes meet the standard of meaningful prior and informed consent in circumstances of transformative change.

Even where direct displacement is avoided, secondary impacts, including road networks, labour camps, resource extraction and administrative expansion, may irreversibly alter traditional ways of life. Development in tribal territories demands not merely mitigation, but safeguards for survival.

Islands are not mainlands

Great Nicobar lies in a high seismic zone and was significantly altered by the tsunami of 2004. Coastal geomorphology remains dynamic. Island ecosystems display high endemism and limited dispersal options. Indigenous communities with small population bases are demographically fragile.

Cumulative impact assessment integrating ecological, seismic, hydrological, and anthropological variables is foundational to rational planning. Fragmented approvals risk underestimating systemic vulnerability.

The constitutional test

Strategic infrastructure is a legitimate objective of the State. However, constitutional environmentalism requires that even such projects respect ecological limits and indigenous dignity. Article 21’s expansion to include environmental protection and dignified life applies equally to remote islands. The public-trust doctrine binds the state as trustee of natural resources for present and future generations.

The deeper inquiry remains unsettled. Has the ecological and social carrying capacity of Great Nicobar been scientifically established before authorising transformative development? Infrastructure can be redesigned. Endemic extinction cannot be reversed. Nor can the erosion of a vulnerable tribal society be meaningfully undone. In fragile ecosystems, constitutional wisdom lies not in demonstrating that transformation is administratively permissible, but in ensuring that it is ecologically sustainable and socially just.

Ashok Kumar Raghav is a former IPS officer who now advocates on environmental advocacy and is contesting a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India on the carrying capacity and ecological sustainability of the Indian Himalayan Region.

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth