Home » Ports » Concerns over Nicobar port construction raised by PIL

Concerns over Nicobar port construction raised by PIL

A retired IAS officer, who served as secretary of MoEF as well as the tribal affairs ministry, moved a PIL seeking the court’s intervention to quash the MoEF notification on the grounds that it was ultra vires.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Email

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was ordered by the Calcutta High Court to submit an affidavit within five weeks about a government notification dated March 12, 2021, that seeks to build an airport, a transshipment port, and a huge township in Great Nicobar’s environmentally vulnerable areas. Galathea Bay and Campbell National Park’s zero-kilometer eco-sensitive zone is where the building is proposed. A retired IAS officer who held the positions of tribal affairs ministry and MoEF secretary filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to have the MoEF notification revoked on the grounds that it was beyond the bounds of authority.

The petitioner’s counsel expressed concern about environmental impact of such construction, submitting that it would damage sensitive ecosystems, including mangroves, coral reefs and the habitat of leatherback turtles. The counsel added that the project may lead to displacement of indigenous tribal communities, particularly the Shompen population in Great Nicobar.

Additional solicitor general to Calcutta High Court, Asoke Chakraborty, pointed to the delay in the PIL when the MoEF notification was from 2021. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the notification was made at the peak of the Covid pandemic, and it was impossible to work because of the lockdown and poor connectivity. The counsel also pointed out that MoEF published the draft notification seeking opinions in a daily with an instruction to find details on the official website. The counsel submitted that when he made the search, the “page was not found”.

A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), after reviewing seven points of concern mentioned in the PIL, directed MoEF to clarify in the affidavit how the project would help in protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing pollution as provided under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

The bench also took note that Wildlife Institute of India had flagged the issue of the buffer zone in Sept 2020, and that minutes of the 44th meeting of the expert committee set up by govt did not mention the institute’s observations.

The CJ referred to an SC order (Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Rohit Prajapati, 2020) in which the apex court clarified that Centre could take steps in consonance with Section 3(1) of Environment (Protection) Act.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Email

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

One Ocean Maritime Media Private Limited
Email
Name
Share your views in comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *