India's No.1 PU & Degree With Integrated IAS & IPS(UPSC/PSC) Training College.
Great Nicobar: Nature’s Legal Rights Debate
GREAT NICOBAR REVIVES THE ISSUE OF NATURE’S LEGAL RIGHTS
Why in the news?
- Several legal precedents exist worldwide that emphasize the protection of territories and natural resources.
- Ecologically, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are among the world’s richest biodiversity hotspots, serving as a global carbon sink and climate regulator.
- However, the development approach to these islands has often been mainland-centric, overlooking the unique ecological and cultural needs of island environments.
- The current concern is the Government of India’s mega infrastructure plan for the Great Nicobar project, involving:
○ Construction of a power plant, township, transshipment port, and airport.
○ Diversion of approximately 13,000 hectares of pristine forest land.
- This raises questions about the balance between development and ecological preservation in such fragile ecosystems of the Nicobar Islands.
Essential Judicial Precedent: Niyamgiri Hills Case
- A landmark judgment relevant to forest diversion and tribal rights is the Niyamgiri Hills case (2013) under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
- In Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment & Forest and Others (2013), the Supreme Court of India examined the proposed bauxite mining project in the Niyamgiri Hills of Odisha.
- The Dongoria Kondh tribe opposed the project as it threatened their sacred lands, cultural identity, and environment.
- The Court directed that a referendum be conducted in the affected gram sabhas to decide the fate of the project.
○ The gram sabhas unanimously voted against mining.
○ The Court upheld the authority of gram sabhas to protect and preserve tribal traditions, culture, community resources, and modes of dispute resolution.
Relevance to the Great Nicobar Project
- The Great Nicobar project (involving large-scale forest diversion) raises similar constitutional and ecological concerns.
- Key question:
○ Was the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar given the opportunity to certify the settlement of forest rights under the Forest Rights Act before forest diversion?
- A report titled “Forest rights of tribal people were not settled for Nicobar project: council” (August 23, 2025) revealed that:
○ The Tribal Council accused the Andaman and Nicobar Administration of misrepresenting facts to the Centre.
○ It claimed that the forest rights of tribal people were neither identified nor settled prior to diverting forest land for the project.
Granting Rights to Nature in India
- The situation in Great Nicobar reflects a recurring pattern where large multipurpose development projects become ecological and social disasters.
○ Examples: Tehri Dam (North), Koel Karo (East), and Sardar Sarovar (West).
Emergence of ‘Earth Jurisprudence’ or ‘Rights of Nature’
- In response to repeated failures of environmental laws, several countries — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and New Zealand — have adopted the ‘earth jurisprudence’ approach.
- This philosophy grants legal rights to nature, treating rivers, forests, mountains, and ecosystems as subjects of law and rights holders, not as property.
Philosophical Foundation
- The concept draws from Christopher Stone’s 1972 article, “Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.”
- Stone’s key arguments:
○ Environmental laws protect humans from environmental harm, not the environment itself.
○ Legal relief should be extended to natural entities directly, not merely to affected human beings.
○ Natural entities should have legal standing and be beneficiaries of legal redress.
○ A guardianship body should represent such entities in court, manage compensation, and ensure ecological restoration.
Indian Context and Judicial Development
- India took a pioneering step in 2017 when the Uttarakhand High Court granted legal personhood to:
○ The Ganga and Yamuna rivers, and
○ The Gangotri and Yamunotri glaciers.
- Case: Mohd. Salim vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (2017).
- The Court conferred rights and duties on these natural entities, to be exercised through designated human representatives (guardians).
- Although the Supreme Court stayed the ruling, the judgment introduced a groundbreaking legal idea —
○ The concept of guardianship for natural entities could guide the future design of legal personhood for ecological protection.
The Case in Colombia as Guidance
Extending the Forest Rights Act (FRA):
- One possible reform is to expand the scope of the FRA to include the concept of legal personhood for natural entities.
- However, this requires greater legal and conceptual clarity regarding:
○ The specific rights of natural entities.
○ The duties and liabilities of the individuals or institutions responsible for upholding those rights.
Key Normative Questions to Address
- How should “rights-bearing nature” be defined?
- What specific rights should be recognized for natural entities?
- Who can legitimately represent or speak for nature in legal forums?
- Should there be an individual or institutional responsibility for protecting and enforcing these rights?
Colombia’s Atrato River Case (2016): A Model
- The Constitutional Court of Colombia in the Atrato River case (2016) recognized the Atrato River as a legal entity with “bio-cultural rights.”
- Bio-cultural rights refer to the collective rights of ethnic and indigenous communities to:
○ Autonomously administer and protect their traditional territories.
○ Safeguard the natural resources forming part of their cultural and ecological habitat.
- The Court ordered the formation of a Commission of Guardians to represent the river’s interests.
○ This commission included indigenous community representatives, ensuring local participation and cultural legitimacy in protecting the ecosystem.
In the context of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, particularly the Great Nicobar project, these legal precedents and concepts could be applied to protect the unique ecosystems and the rights of the Nicobarese people. The Tribal Affairs Ministry could play a crucial role in ensuring that community forest rights are respected and that proper environmental impact assessments are conducted before any forest diversion certificates are issued.
The concept of gram sabha consent, as seen in the Niyamgiri Hills case, could be extended to the tribal reserve areas in the Nicobar archipelago. This would ensure that the Nicobarese people have a say in development projects that affect their ancestral lands and traditional ways of life.
As the Great Nicobar project progresses, it is essential to balance development needs with environmental conservation and the protection of indigenous rights. The lessons from Colombia’s Atrato River case could provide a framework for granting legal personhood to the ecosystems of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, ensuring their protection for future generations.
Mains question
Discuss the concept of granting legal personhood to natural entities. How can we strengthen environmental governance and tribal rights protection in India? (250 words)
