Context:

• Recently, the Union Environment Ministry informed the National Green Tribunal that the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar mega infrastructure project will significantly affect the island’s rich forests and biodiversity.
• The project — which includes a transshipment port, airport, power plant, and tourism township — has faced intense legal scrutiny.
• Defending the 2022 environmental clearance, the government acknowledged that Galathea Bay, the proposed port site, contains over 20,000 live coral colonies, more than 50 nesting mounds of the endemic Nicobar Megapode (a Schedule I species), and is an active nesting ground for the Giant Leatherback turtle.
• The Ministry stated it was aware of these impacts and has committed to mitigation and conservation measures extending until 2052.
• This article highlights the serious environmental, legal, and procedural contradictions surrounding the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar infrastructure project.
• It reveals how the Environment Ministry’s own admissions, CRZ reclassification disputes, and overlooked ecological data undermine the integrity of its clearance process.

Environment Ministry’s Contradiction on Great Nicobar Conservation

• The Ministry’s justification of mitigation measures for the Great Nicobar project raises deeper concerns about why such measures are needed in the first place.
• By treating the project as inevitable and offering mitigation as a remedy, the Ministry obscures its own role in permitting it and neglecting its core mandate of conservation.
• A major contradiction lies in the 2021 decision of the National Board for Wildlife to denotify the Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary — an area proposed since 1997 to protect leatherback turtles, corals, megapodes, mangroves and saltwater crocodiles.
• The same institution responsible for safeguarding this critical habitat removed its protection, only to later propose conservation plans, highlighting a clear conflict between statutory duty and actual decision-making.

Controversy Over CRZ Classification and Procedural Transparency

• Under Indian law, ecologically sensitive coastal areas — including mangroves, coral reefs, turtle nesting sites and protected areas — fall under CRZ-1A, where major construction like a port is strictly prohibited.
• Galathea Bay meets all these criteria. Yet, despite this, the Environment Ministry has tried to justify the Great Nicobar port project, creating contradictions in its own regulatory framework.
• The issue became stark after the NGT’s April 2023 order confirming that the port site had over 20,600 coral colonies and fell within CRZ-1A, where ports are banned.
• The Tribunal asked a high-powered committee to reassess the site.
• This committee relied on a confidential survey by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), which unexpectedly concluded that no part of the project area was CRZ-1A, thereby making the port “permissible” as CRZ-1B.
• This reasoning is circular: CRZ-1A areas were seemingly reclassified as CRZ-1B solely to allow the project.
• Moreover, neither the NCSCM report nor the committee’s submission has been made public.
• The Ministry has withheld them on the grounds of defence sensitivity, even though the denotification of the wildlife sanctuary and the CRZ downgrade were done for commercial development, not defence purposes.

Ministry’s Own Admission Undermines CRZ Reclassification Claims

• Forest Department data shows over 600 leatherback turtle nestings in 2024, one of the highest recorded for Great Nicobar.
• If these ecological facts are accurate, Galathea Bay clearly qualifies as CRZ-1A, deserving maximum protection.
• This directly contradicts the high-powered committee and NCSCM reports claiming the site is not CRZ-1A.
• The contradiction raises deeper concerns: either the Ministry’s legal submission or the committee’s scientific assessment is flawed.
• This inconsistency points to serious issues of scientific integrity, procedural propriety, and transparency in the approvals granted for the project.