Context

• The Andaman and Nicobar Islands, celebrated as one of the planet’s major biodiversity hotspots, occupy a crucial ecological position as carbon reservoirs and climate regulators.
• Yet, these fragile ecosystems now face severe threats from development policies largely influenced by mainland India’s economic agenda.
• The Government of India’s multi-crore mega-plan for Great Nicobar Island, encompassing a power plant, transshipment port, township, and airport, poses an imminent danger to approximately 13,000 hectares of pristine forest.

Ecological Significance and Developmental Disruption

• The Andaman and Nicobar Islands represent a rare ecological sanctuary, hosting unique biodiversity and playing a vital role in regulating the global climate.
• However, their development trajectory has historically been dictated by mainland India, which often overlooks the islands’ delicate environmental balance.
• The proposed Great Nicobar project epitomises this dissonance: while aimed at boosting infrastructure and economic output, it threatens to destabilise ecosystems that sustain both human and non-human life.
• Such developmental ambitions mirror a larger global trend where short-term economic gains often override long-term ecological sustainability, turning once-thriving ecosystems into collateral damage in the race for progress.

The Niyamgiri Precedent: Legal Recognition of Indigenous Rights

• A powerful legal analogy to the Great Nicobar issue can be found in the 2013 Niyamgiri Hills judgment (Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment & Forest and Ors.).
• In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the rights of the Dongoria Kondh tribe to protect their sacred land from bauxite mining, recognising the competence of the gram sabha to safeguard cultural identity, traditions, and community resources.
• The Court’s decision underscored the principle that environmental justice must include the voices of local and indigenous populations most affected by ecological degradation.
• In the case of Great Nicobar, serious concerns have emerged regarding the violation of this very principle.
• Reports suggest that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration falsely represented to the Centre that the forest rights of the Nicobarese tribes had been settled, without allowing the Tribal Council to certify such settlement as required under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

Beyond Anthropocentrism: The Emergence of ‘Rights of Nature’

• The repeated failure of environmental laws to prevent ecological damage has prompted several nations to adopt an alternative jurisprudential approach, earth jurisprudence or rights of nature.
• This philosophy, embraced by countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and New Zealand, redefines nature not as a resource to be exploited but as a rights-bearing entity deserving of legal recognition and protection.
• The intellectual roots of this movement trace back to Christopher Stone’s seminal 1972 article, Should Trees Have Standing?
• Stone argued that environmental protection laws were inherently anthropocentric, offering remedies only for human harm rather than for the degradation of nature itself.

Indian Legal Experiments and the Challenge of Guardianship

• India’s flirtation with the rights of nature framework emerged in 2017 when the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers and their glaciers as legal persons.
• Although the Supreme Court later stayed this judgment, it signalled a growing willingness to explore innovative legal mechanisms for ecological protection.
• The concept of appointing guardians to represent natural entities, humans legally obligated to act on behalf of ecosystems, offers a promising avenue for translating philosophical recognition into practical enforcement.
• However, such recognition also raises complex legal questions. Can natural entities, like human persons, bear responsibilities or engage in legal transactions?

Lessons from Colombia: The Atrato River and Biocultural Rights

• Colombia’s Atrato River case (2016) offers valuable guidance for integrating indigenous and ecological rights.
• The Colombian Constitutional Court recognised the river as a legal subject and introduced the concept of biocultural rights, acknowledging the intertwined existence of local communities and their natural environment.
• This judgment mandated the formation of a commission of guardians, including representatives from affected indigenous groups, to oversee the river’s protection.
• Such a model could be transformative for India’s island ecosystems.
• By recognising the biocultural connection between Nicobarese tribes and their forested lands, India could design a legal framework that simultaneously protects cultural survival and environmental integrity.

Conclusion

• The Great Nicobar project encapsulates the persistent clash between economic expansion and ecological preservation.
• As history and jurisprudence demonstrate, sustainable development cannot emerge from policies that silence indigenous communities or commodify ecosystems.
• The lessons from the Niyamgiri Hills, the rights of nature movement, and the Atrato River case collectively point toward a more inclusive and ecocentric legal philosophy, one that transcends the limitations of human-centred law.
• The survival of Great Nicobar’s forests, and indeed the planet’s ecological future, depends not merely on conserving biodiversity but on reimagining our relationship with the natural world, one founded on respect, responsibility, and recognition of nature as a living legal subject.