GS2Polity · Governance · IR· Bills, Acts & ordinances· Prelims + Mains·
Judicial review of infrastructure projects vs. indigenous rights: a GS2 Governance and Environment case study.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre's plea against a Calcutta High Court order upholding Public Interest Litigations (PILs) alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the Great Nicobar Island project.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, dismissed the Centre's plea on October 5, 2026. The Calcutta High Court had upheld PILs regarding the Great Nicobar Island project's compliance with the Forest Rights Act.
With reference to the Great Nicobar project, consider the following statements:
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer: (a) 1 only — Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Calcutta High Court upheld the PILs. Statement 3 is incorrect: The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre's plea.
Q. Examine the conflict between large-scale infrastructure development and the protection of indigenous forest rights under the Forest Rights Act.
Dimensions to cover in your answer
Keywords: Judicial Review · Forest Rights Act · Environmental Governance · Infrastructure Development · Public Interest Litigation
This note is generated automatically from SatyaDheesh's news feed and mapped to the UPSC CSE syllabus. Check facts against the original report or PIB before using them in an answer.