Pranav B Prem

The National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata, comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member), Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member), Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member), and Mr. Ishwar Singh (Expert Member), dismissed a fresh batch of applications challenging the proposed International Container Transshipment Terminal, township and power project in Great Nicobar Island, holding that no ground was made out to interfere with the environmental clearance granted to the project.    

Also Read: NGT Directs PWD, GNCTD to Clean Drain Clogged by Waste from Dumping Yard and Submit Report Within Six Weeks

The Tribunal was dealing with Original Application Nos. 93/2024 and 95/2024 along with a miscellaneous application filed by environmental activist Ashish Kothari against the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and other authorities. The applications challenged the proposed integrated project comprising an International Container Transshipment Terminal, township and area development, and a 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant in Great Nicobar Island.

The applicant alleged violations of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification, 2019, including the location of project components in prohibited ICRZ-IA areas, destruction of coral reefs, inadequate environmental impact assessment data, and non-compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 3 April 2023.  He also sought punitive action against the authorities for alleged willful violation of the earlier directions. 

The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation. In the earlier round, the environmental clearance granted on 11 November 2022 had already been examined, and the Tribunal had found that “by and large the project is compliant and EC does not call for interference.” However, it had directed the constitution of a High-Powered Committee to examine three specific issues, namely protection of corals, adequacy of environmental baseline data, and whether any part of the project fell within ICRZ-IA areas.

The Tribunal observed that the High-Powered Committee had examined all the three issues. On coral protection, it noted the findings of the Zoological Survey of India that “no major coral reef exists within the work area of the project,” and only scattered colonies were found in adjoining areas. The Committee accepted the recommendation to translocate coral colonies likely to be affected and to undertake long-term monitoring and conservation measures.  The Tribunal concluded that, on the basis of the material placed on record, it could not be held that the ICRZ prohibition on destruction of corals had been violated.   

On the issue of environmental data, the Tribunal referred to the High-Powered Committee’s finding that the applicable EIA guidelines for ports and harbours required only one season of baseline data, excluding the monsoon period.  It also noted that no critical erosion zones had been identified in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and therefore, the use of single-season data was in line with the applicable norms.

Regarding the allegation that part of the project fell within ICRZ-IA areas, the Tribunal referred to the findings of the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management. After conducting ground-truthing exercises and verifying layout plans, the agency concluded that no part of the project area fell within ICRZ-IA zones. The High-Powered Committee accepted this conclusion, and the Tribunal held that the issue had been adequately addressed.  

The Tribunal also noted the strategic and national importance of the project. Referring to earlier findings, it observed that the project had “great significance not only for economic development… but also for defense and national security.” It emphasised that while the conditions of the ICRZ Notification must be strictly enforced, a balanced approach was required in matters involving development projects of strategic importance. 

The Bench observed that adequate safeguards had been incorporated into the environmental clearance conditions, including provisions for coral translocation, biodiversity monitoring, and protection of tribal communities. It further noted that any violation of these conditions during execution would expose the project to legal challenge.

Also Read: Alleged Illegal Tree Cutting In South Delhi: NGT Orders Joint Committee Inquiry

Holding that the issues raised had already been examined in the earlier round and addressed by the High-Powered Committee, the Tribunal found no ground to interfere with the environmental clearance. Accordingly, the applications were disposed of with a direction to the authorities and the project proponent to ensure full and strict compliance with the environmental clearance conditions.

Cause Title: Ashish Kothari v. MoEF & CC

Case No: Original Application No. 93/2024/EZ (IA No. 80/2024/EZ, I.A. No. 110/2025/EZ, I.A No.111/2025/EZ) WITH Original Application No. 95/2024/EZ (I.A No. 108/2025/EZ, I.A No. 109/2025/EZ) WITH M.A No. 23/2024/EZ In Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ

Coram: Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member), Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member), Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member), and Mr. Ishwar Singh (Expert Member)