Skilful Balancing Act

The UK-based think tank Chatham House, in a recent article, observed that “we are on the verge of a ‘multiplex’ order, in which ‘re-globalization’ is led by Asia and Global South nations.” Similar assessments of the end of unipolarity have been expressed by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, who remarked: “My bottom line is that the unipolar moment [was] really a wonderful time. … But it’s gone away, and we actually live in very dangerous times.” Recent empirical evidence supports this view. The risk analytics firm Verisk Maplecroft reports that conflict-affected territory expanded by 89 per cent globally between 2021 and 2025. The Geopolitical Risk (GPR) Index has also remained elevated in recent years, reflecting recurring geopolitical crises. Similarly, according to the latest estimates of the global BlackRock Geopolitical Risk Indicator, which aims to capture overall market attention to geopolitical risks, there is a very high likelihood of a prolonged regional war in the Middle East, which would lead to serious disruptions to energy infrastructure and increase volatility.

Against this evolving geopolitical environment, India has intensified efforts to strengthen its strategic position in the Indo-Pacific region through the development of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These islands provide India with a natural strategic vantage point in the eastern Indian Ocean. Located close to the entrance of the Strait of Malacca, they overlook a significant portion of global maritime trade routes, including vital crude oil shipping lanes. Their geographical position at the intersection of the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea, and the Pacific Ocean underscores their importance within India’s broader eastward and Indo-Pacific strategic orientation.

Within this strategic framework, the Great Nicobar Mega Project, a ₹80,000-crore greenfield infrastructure initiative, has been proposed on Great Nicobar Island. The project aims to transform the island into a major maritime, logistics, and urban hub. Its key components include a container trans-shipment terminal, an international airport, a gas–solar hybrid power plant, and a large coastal township designed to support long-term economic development and maritime logistics.

Legal Challenges & The NGT

The project has nevertheless faced criticism from environmental activists. Much of Great Nicobar Island falls within the Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve and forms part of a globally significant biodiversity hotspot. Critics have therefore argued that the scale of development is ecologically risky and legally questionable. In the first round of litigation, the forest clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) for the diversion of 130.75 square kilometres of forest land was challenged. The National Green Tribunal (NGT), in its order dated 03.04.2023, held that the diversion complied with the provisions of the National Forest Policy, 1988, and further noted that the project area does not fall within the boundaries of any National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, or Eco-Sensitive Zone, contrary to the claims advanced by the appellants.

In a second round of litigation, the environmental clearance granted to the project in 2022 was challenged. The appellants argued that the project encroached upon the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), an important nesting habitat for leatherback turtles. However, the Expert Appraisal Committee noted that portions of the project “falling under CRZ would be excluded from the revised layout of the master plan.” The appellants also raised concerns regarding the presence of coral formations in the area. A study conducted by the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) concluded that only scattered coral formations exist in the region and that these could be translocated if necessary. Another issue raised by the appellants was that the Environmental Impact Assessment required data from three seasons, whereas the Ministry had relied on a single-season dataset. The Tribunal accepted the submission of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) that such additional data was unnecessary because the region does not contain high-erosion coastal sites.

After considering these issues, the Tribunal accepted the findings of the relevant expert bodies. In its judgment, it stated that “adequate safeguards have been provided in the EC… and, considering the strategic importance of the Project and taking into account the other relevant considerations, we do not find any good ground to interfere.”

Legal Principles

From a legal standpoint, the Tribunal’s task was to determine whether the statutory procedures governing environmental and forest clearances had been followed. It concluded that the applicable procedures had indeed been complied with. Despite this, critics have argued that tribunals should not rely extensively on government submissions and must instead apply independent technical assessment when adjudicating such challenges.

However, the administrative law doctrine of agency deference provides support for the Tribunal’s approach. Under this principle, courts and tribunals often accord significant weight to the interpretations and decisions of executive agencies when those decisions fall within the agencies’ specialised domain of expertise. In the Great Nicobar case, the Tribunal recognised that institutions such as the High-Powered Committee of the MoEFCC, the Expert Appraisal Committee, and the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) possess specialised scientific and regulatory expertise relevant to the issues under consideration.

The logic underlying the doctrine of agency deference is that the agency responsible for formulating and implementing regulatory frameworks is often best positioned to interpret and apply them. Judicial review, therefore, requires a careful balance between oversight by courts and respect for the expertise of administrative institutions. In this case, that balance appears to have been maintained.

This approach also aligns with the evolving environmental jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India. In its landmark decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, the Court emphasised the need to reconcile competing environmental priorities. It held that, when considering the goal of conservation vis-à-vis development projects, “it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach which does not sacrifice either of the two goals at the altar of the other.” The reasoning of the Tribunal in the present case reflects this holistic approach, where environmental protection is harmonised with institutional competence and broader strategic considerations.

International Approaches

Comparative jurisprudence from other jurisdictions reveals similar reasoning. In R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Transport, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom allowed the government to proceed with the High Speed 2 railway project despite unresolved environmental assessment concerns, emphasising the limits of judicial intervention in major policy decisions. Likewise, in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court of the United States held that national security interests outweighed certain environmental concerns.

Similar outcomes are also visible in civil law jurisdictions. In Association Coordination Interrégionale Stop THT v. France, French administrative courts upheld the construction of high-voltage transmission lines deemed essential for national energy security after determining that environmental impact procedures had been satisfied and the infrastructure had been declared a public utility. German courts adopted a comparable approach in litigation concerning the Gorleben Nuclear Waste Repository, where an extensive review was conducted, but federal authorities ultimately retained broad planning discretion.

Viewed in this broader perspective, the judgment of the National Green Tribunal demonstrates India’s effort to pursue a model of environmentally conscious development that accommodates both ecological protection and strategic imperatives. It reflects an attempt to ensure that environmental governance evolves alongside changing geopolitical realities while maintaining the institutional balance between expert regulatory bodies, tribunals, and courts.

Views expressed are personal. Mr Garg is the President and Mr Rathore is a Research Associate, both at Mobius Foundation