Get the weekly digest
Top current affairs + exam tips, every Monday morning.
📝 AI-generated analysis for exam preparation. This is original educational content curated for competitive exam aspirants.
On June 3, 2026, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh wrote to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, questioning the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Great Nicobar Island (GNI) Project. Ramesh highlighted that the EIA was based on a single seasonal cycle of primary data integrated with historical datasets, rather than the legally required three-season primary data collection. He argued that secondary data cannot substitute for project-specific primary studies. The GNI project, spanning 166 sq km, includes a transhipment container port, an international military-civilian airport, power infrastructure, and a greenfield coastal city, requiring the felling of 13,000 hectares of pristine forest. Ramesh also contested the reliance on two NGT judgments (April 3, 2023 and February 16, 2026) as validation, noting that the February 2026 ruling flagged that ports are prohibited in 'high erosion stretches' and questioned why a high-powered committee’s report on revisiting the environmental clearance remains confidential in a sealed cover.
The Great Nicobar Island Project has been in planning since the early 2000s, but gained momentum after 2015 when the NITI Aayog proposed it as a strategic infrastructure hub. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) granted environmental clearance in 2021, which was challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on grounds of inadequate EIA. In April 2023, the NGT upheld the clearance but mandated a review by a high-powered committee, which submitted its report in a sealed cover in 2024. The project's multiple revisions—from a purely civilian airport to a dual-use military-civilian facility—reflect its evolving strategic rationale, particularly in response to China's growing presence in the Indian Ocean. The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (as amended in 2023) requires comprehensive EIA studies covering three seasons (pre-monsoon, monsoon, post-monsoon) to account for seasonal variations. However, the MoEFCC’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for projects in ecologically sensitive areas has often been criticized for allowing baseline data from secondary sources. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands have been designated as ecologically sensitive under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2019, and the islands' unique biodiversity—including the Nicobar megapode and leatherback turtles—has been a focal point for conservationists. The February 2026 NGT ruling, while not quashing the clearance, flagged that the Galathea Bay port site falls under 'high erosion' zones, where ports are prohibited under the CRZ rules.
Take This Week's Quiz
20 cross-topic questions from this week's current affairs
Environmentalists welcome retention of term 'Natural Conservation Zone' in NCR Regional Plan 2041
8 JunAs El Niño threatens monsoon, farmer groups promote millets, mulching and drip irrigation
3 JunSupreme Court forms high-powered expert panel to re-examine Aravalli definition
3 Jun02 Jun 2026 MAHA Water Mission For Water Secure Future It is a Rs 200 crore programme launched by Anusandhan National Research Foundation and Ministry of Jal Shakti. Read Article
3 JunPolitical & Constitutional Dimensions Government Position: The Union government, led by Bhupender Yadav, maintains that the EIA process is thorough and legally compliant. It argues that integrating historical datasets from reputed institutions compensates for the single-season primary data. The reliance on two NGT judgments is presented as judicial validation. The project’s strategic importance—as a counter to China’s influence in the Indian Ocean—is increasingly emphasized. Opposition View: Jairam Ramesh, as a key opposition voice, contends that the EIA falls short of the 2006 Notification’s requirement for three-season primary data. He questions the transparency of the process, pointing to the confidential high-powered committee report. The political dimension underlines the broader debate on the balance between development and environmental protection, with the opposition accusing the government of sidelining ecological concerns for strategic and economic gains. Economic & Financial Impact Government View: The GNI project is projected to boost India’s maritime trade by providing a modern transhipment port capable of handling large container ships, reducing India’s reliance on foreign ports like Colombo and Singapore. The military-civilian airport will enhance connectivity and tourism, potentially generating significant revenue and employment. Critic View: Ramesh and environmental experts argue that the economic benefits are overstated and fail to account for the irreversible ecological damage. The cost of deforestation (13,000 hectares of pristine forest) and potential loss of ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration, biodiversity) are not factored in. The project may also face cost overruns, as seen in similar large-scale infrastructure projects in sensitive areas. Social Dimensions Government View: The project promises development, including jobs, infrastructure, and improved living standards for local communities, including the Nicobarese tribal population. The airport will improve connectivity for residents and facilitate tourism. Critic View: Environmentalists and tribal rights groups warn that the project will displace indigenous communities (the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes) and destroy their traditional livelihoods. The felling of 13,000 hectares of forest will disrupt the habitat of endemic species and reduce the ecological resilience of the region. The lack of public disclosure of the high-powered committee report undermines community participation in decision-making, violating the rights guaranteed under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Governance & Administrative Aspects Government View: The MoEFCC has followed due process by obtaining statutory appraisal from expert committees and judicial scrutiny from the NGT. The use of historical datasets is defended as scientifically robust, and the project’s strategic clearance is aligned with national security objectives. Critic View: The reliance on a single-season EIA violates the 2006 Notification’s explicit requirement for three-season baseline data. The February 2026 NGT ruling’s flagging of CRZ violations (ports in high erosion zones) exposes gaps in the clearance process. The secrecy around the high-powered committee report raises questions about transparency and accountability. Administrative overlaps between the MoEFCC, Ministry of Defence, and Ministry of Ports may lead to coordination delays and dilution of environmental safeguards. International Perspective Government View: The project enhances India’s strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean, countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its military presence in the region. It aligns with India’s Indo-Pacific policy and strengthens partnerships with countries like the US, Japan, and Australia (QUAD). Critic View: International environmental organizations like the IUCN and UNEP have flagged the project’s impact on biodiversity, particularly on the Nicobar megapode and leatherback turtles, which are globally threatened. India’s commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to protect ecologically sensitive areas may be undermined. The CRZ violation could attract scrutiny from international maritime bodies.
Short-term measures: (1) The MoEFCC should order a comprehensive three-season EIA study for the GNI project, as mandated by the 2006 Notification, within six months. (2) The high-powered committee report should be made public to ensure transparency and allow for independent expert scrutiny. (3) The Ministry should assess the Galathea Bay site for CRZ compliance, given the NGT’s flagging of high erosion stretches, and consider relocating the port if necessary. Medium-term reforms: (1) Implement the recommendations of the B.P. Singh Committee (2006) on EIA reforms, including mandatory independent peer review of EIAs for projects in ecologically sensitive areas. (2) Establish a dedicated body for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, similar to the National Board for Wildlife, to balance development and conservation. (3) Create a public portal for all EIA documents and committee reports to enhance accountability. Long-term vision: (1) Adopt the international best practice of cumulative impact assessments, as done by the Australian Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, for large projects in sensitive regions. (2) Integrate climate change projections into coastal zone management, as recommended by the IPCC, to avoid investments in high-risk zones like Galathea Bay. (3) Strengthen the role of local communities and panchayats in decision-making, as under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, to ensure sustainable and inclusive development.