Trump’s assault on the US Supreme Court enters a decisive year

On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to stay a Calcutta High Court order in a case challenging the Great Nicobar Island Project. The Court affirmed that "preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right." The three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, instructed the High Court to adjudicate the case without delay.

The Center, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, emphasized the immense national importance and strategic value of the ₹72,000 crore project, which involves a container terminal. The Court acknowledged that there was no displacement of the indigenous tribal population, such as the endangered Shompen tribe.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that "preservation of culture" warranted constitutional protection for tribal cultures in Nicobar. Bhati argued that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had previously ruled on environmental concerns, clearing the project's clearance with conditions and forming a High Powered Committee to re-examine specific ecological impacts.

The Calcutta High Court had dismissed the government's preliminary objections regarding the writ petitions' locus standi, as Gupta was not deemed a local. However, the High Court had scheduled the case for November 25 and 26 to hear constitutional issues concerning fundamental rights and the preservation of tribal life. Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, representing Gupta, pointed out that the Union's arguments regarding maintainability had become academic, as tribal councils had been impleaded.

The Bench suggested the Union could present the NGT decisions to the High Court, urging the Centre to continue pressing the maintainability question. The cases in the High Court alleged that the project's diversion of over 130 sq. km of pristine tropical forest violated the 2006 Act and threatened the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes' way of life and culture.