NGT Dismisses Fresh Pleas on Great Nicobar Project, Reiterates Environmental Clearance; Orders Strict Compliance

Sri Vijaya Puram | February 16, 2026

In a significant judgment concerning the proposed holistic development of Great Nicobar Island, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, has dismissed a fresh round of applications challenging aspects of the project, reiterating that the environmental clearance (EC) had already been upheld in 2023 and directing authorities to ensure full and strict compliance with all conditions.

The order dated February 16, 2026 disposes of Original Application (OA) Nos. 93/2024/EZ and 95/2024/EZ along with M.A. No. 23/2024/EZ (in Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ), all filed by Ashish Kothari, raising objections to the International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT), township and area development, and the 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant proposed in Great Nicobar Island .

The Bench comprised NGT Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Judicial Members Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, and Expert Members Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Dr. Afroz Ahmad and Mr. Ishwar Singh .

Second Round of Litigation

The Tribunal expressly noted that this was the second round of litigation by the same applicant concerning the Great Nicobar project .

In 2022, the applicant had challenged:

• Stage-I forest clearance for diversion of 130.75 sq. km of forest land.
• The environmental clearance dated November 11, 2022.

Those appeals were disposed of by a common order dated April 3, 2023, in which the Tribunal had held that “by and large the project is compliant and EC does not call for interference” . However, it constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to examine three specific concerns relating to:

1. Coral destruction and compliance with Clause 3(i) of the ICRZ Notification, 2019.
2. One-season versus three-season baseline environmental data.
3. Whether any part of the port project fell within ICRZ-IA areas where port activity is prohibited .

In the present proceedings, the EC itself was not under fresh challenge. Instead, the applicant alleged non-compliance with the Tribunal’s 2023 directions, sought revisiting of the EC in light of the HPC report, and even prayed for punitive action against authorities for alleged wilful violation of the earlier order .

The Tribunal ultimately did not accept that there was wilful violation and focused instead on whether the issues identified in 2023 had been properly examined.

Strategic and National Importance Emphasised

The order reiterates the strategic and national importance of the Great Nicobar project.

The EC records that the project is intended to:

• Strengthen India’s presence in the Indian Ocean Region.
• Counter growing foreign strategic influence.
• Develop a new economic hub near the Malacca Strait.
• Improve connectivity with mainland India and global cities.
• Generate large-scale socio-economic benefits and employment.

In its earlier 2023 judgment, the Tribunal had already observed that the project has “great significance not only for economic development… but also for defence and national security” .

At the same time, the present order makes clear that strategic importance does not override environmental law. The Bench observed that neither the project’s strategic importance can be denied nor can the conditions of the ICRZ Notification be ignored, and that a balanced approach is required .

Issue 1: Coral Protection and Translocation

A central objection concerned alleged destruction of corals, which is prohibited under Clause 3(i) of the ICRZ Notification.

The Tribunal examined the findings of the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), which had reported that:

• No major coral reef exists within the actual work area of the port in Galathea Bay.
• 16,150 coral colonies within 15 metres depth and in proximity to the project may be impacted and should be translocated.
• The remaining 4,518 colonies at 15–30 metres depth require further study before any decision on translocation .

The High-Powered Committee accepted ZSI’s recommendations and directed that ANIIDCO provide necessary logistical and financial support for coral translocation and related research .

The EC incorporates detailed safeguards, including:

• A revised long-term coral translocation plan extending up to 2052 (the project lifecycle).
• Inclusion of endangered Giant Clams (Tridacna sp.) in the translocation programme.
• GPS tagging of each translocated coral colony to monitor survival.
• Release of the first five years’ budget within three months of EC and CRZ clearance to ensure work begins before project execution on ground .

On this basis, the Tribunal held that, on the material before it, there was no violation of Clause 3(i) of the ICRZ Notification .

It further directed that MoEF&CC must ensure coral protection and regeneration through proven scientific methods, involving reputed institutions such as ZSI and other marine research bodies.

Issue 2: One-Season vs Three-Season Environmental Data

The applicant argued that only one season’s baseline environmental data had been collected, whereas three seasons’ data should have been considered, particularly in view of guidelines applicable to eroding coasts.

The Tribunal referred to a table reproduced in the order listing coastal stretches where shoreline changes have been observed. Andaman & Nicobar Islands do not feature in the list of high-erosion sites .

The HPC also relied on the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Ports and Harbours (2010), which states that “one season data should be monitored other than monsoon as per CPCB norms,” and noted that other port projects are similarly appraised on the basis of one-season data .

The Tribunal accepted this position. However, it imposed a clear responsibility on MoEF&CC to ensure that:

• Foreshore development does not cause shoreline erosion or adverse shoreline change.
• Sandy beaches—critical nesting grounds for turtles and birds—are protected .

Issue 3: Alleged Presence of Project in CRZ-IA

Another key contention was that parts of the port project fall within ICRZ-IA areas, which include ecologically sensitive zones such as turtle nesting grounds.

The Tribunal recorded that:

• In 2022, the Expert Appraisal Committee had required exclusion of any parts of the master plan falling within CRZ-IA and IB from the port layout.
• The EC contains a binding condition (Condition IX) requiring strict adherence to the ICRZ Notification and prohibiting any construction other than permitted activities in CRZ areas .

The National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) conducted ground-truthing on June 17–18, 2023, examining the High Tide Line, Low Tide Line and ecologically sensitive areas. It concluded that no part of the project area falls under CRZ-IA . The HPC accepted this conclusion.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s apprehensions are addressed by the NCSCM findings and the binding EC conditions. It clarified that if, at the execution stage, these conditions are violated, the EC would become vulnerable to challenge .

Tribal and Biodiversity Safeguards

The order reiterates earlier findings that:

• The project will not disturb or displace any Shompen or Nicobarese tribal habitation.
• Habitat rights will be protected under the Forest Rights Act if any issue arises.
• The EC mandates constitution of a specific committee to oversee tribal welfare .

The EC also requires:

• Two all-weather research stations at Campbell Bay and Kamorta, funded and maintained by the project proponent.
• Dedicated funds for conservation of Leatherback Sea Turtles, Nicobar Megapode, saltwater crocodiles, corals and other endemic flora and fauna.
• Separate funding to the A&N Tribal Welfare Department for welfare and protection of Shompen and Nicobarese communities.
• Three independent monitoring committees for pollution, biodiversity, and tribal welfare .

Employment and Land Use

The EC estimates employment generation as follows:

• By 2025: 6,939 direct and 10,408 indirect jobs.
• By 2040: 24,734 direct and 37,101 indirect jobs.
• By 2052: 51,423 direct and 77,135 indirect jobs .

The Tribunal also noted that approximately 18% of Great Nicobar Island is proposed for development, while around 82% will remain under protected forests, national parks, eco-sensitive zones and biosphere reserve for biodiversity conservation .

Final Outcome

In its operative conclusion, the Tribunal held that:

• In the first round, it had already found the project largely compliant.
• The issues identified in 2023 had now been examined by the High-Powered Committee.
• Adequate safeguards are embedded in the EC conditions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no good ground to interfere and disposed of the OAs and MA, directing authorities and regulatory agencies to ensure full and strict compliance with the EC conditions .

While the Tribunal did not freshly “uphold” the EC in this round, it effectively declined to reopen or revisit it, reiterating that compliance with environmental and CRZ safeguards is mandatory and enforceable.