The Hindu Editorial Analysis
13 October 2025
Great Nicobar Revives the Issue of Nature’s Legal Rights
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper II – Governance & Judiciary | GS Paper III – Environment | Essay Paper – Human-Nature Relationship, Ecological Justice, Rights of Nature
Context
The Great Nicobar Island project — a ₹72,000 crore mega infrastructure plan including a transshipment port, township, power plant, and airport — has reignited debate over environmental rights and ecological justice. The project threatens nearly 130 sq km of pristine tropical forests, part of the Andaman and Nicobar biodiversity hotspot, raising legal and ethical concerns over how India balances development and ecological preservation.
The editorial argues that the Great Nicobar controversy has revived discussions around “rights of nature”, highlighting gaps in India’s environmental governance and the need to legally recognize ecosystems as rights-bearing entities.
1. Judicial Precedent: Lessons from the Niyamgiri Case
The 2013 Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests (Niyamgiri Hills case) established a powerful precedent for protecting indigenous and ecological rights.
- The Court recognized the Gram Sabha’s authority to decide on mining proposals affecting their cultural, environmental, and livelihood rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
- It upheld the principle of community consent, mandating that the Gram Sabha safeguard community traditions, resources, and identity.
Relevance to Great Nicobar: The same principle could apply, as the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar was reportedly bypassed before forest diversion approvals were granted. This undermines the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006) — a key instrument for participatory environmental decision-making.
2. The Rights-of-Nature Concept and Global Trends
Several countries — including Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and New Zealand — have adopted “Earth Jurisprudence” or Rights of Nature approaches, legally recognizing rivers, forests, and ecosystems as legal entities with rights to exist, flourish, and regenerate.
- Ecuador’s Constitution (2008) was the first to grant legal personhood to nature.
- New Zealand’s Whanganui River (2017) and Colombia’s Atrato River (2016) were later recognized as rights-bearing entities, with community guardians appointed to represent them.
These global examples treat natural systems as “subjects of rights” rather than property, emphasizing a shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric jurisprudence.
3. India’s Evolving Jurisprudence on Nature’s Rights
India’s courts have shown intermittent openness to the idea of granting legal personhood to natural entities:
- In Mohd. Salim vs. State of Uttarakhand (2017), the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers, and associated glaciers, as “living entities” with corresponding rights and obligations.
- However, the Supreme Court later stayed the ruling, citing ambiguity about guardianship and liability.
- Despite the stay, this judgment signaled a progressive legal direction — acknowledging that nature requires representation in law.
The Great Nicobar controversy revives this discussion — questioning whether ecosystems should be legally protected as rights holders, not merely as resources.
4. The Great Nicobar Case: Legal and Ethical Concerns
a) Ecological Impact
- The project will divert over 130 sq km of forest land, impacting ancient tropical rainforests and the Shompen and Nicobarese tribal communities.
- Reports (August 2025) revealed that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration falsely claimed that tribal rights had been settled under the FRA before diversion — a violation of statutory due process.
b) Environmental Governance Deficit
The episode reflects institutional failure in environmental assessment and oversight.
- Decisions were taken without transparent Gram Sabha consultations, violating the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Forest Conservation norms.
- This mirrors past development models in Tehri, Sardar Sarovar, and Kelo Karo, where large projects prioritized industrial objectives over ecological rights.
The editorial views the Great Nicobar project as a symptom of India’s centralized environmental governance, where “mainland developmental logic” overrides island-specific ecological sensibilities.
5. The Colombia Example: Legal Guardianship Model
Colombia’s 2016 Atrato River judgment offers a practical framework:
- It recognized biocultural rights — linking indigenous community protection with ecological restoration.
- A “Guardians Council” composed of local communities and government representatives was established to protect the river.
India could adopt a similar community-guardian model for ecologically sensitive regions like Great Nicobar, ensuring joint stewardship of biodiversity by the State and local tribes.
6. Way Forward: Toward Ecocentric Governance
a) Legal Reforms
- Amend the Forest Rights Act, 2006, to explicitly incorporate rights of nature and community guardianship.
- Establish legal standing for ecosystems in environmental disputes.
b) Participatory Environmental Governance
- Ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from tribal and forest-dwelling communities.
- Mandate public environmental hearings for all mega-projects involving ecologically fragile zones.
c) Recognize “Ecological Personhood”
- Codify the idea that forests, rivers, and ecosystems are legal entities with enforceable rights.
- Empower tribal councils, local bodies, and civil society to act as guardians or trustees of such ecosystems.
Conclusion
The Great Nicobar project exposes the persistent tension between development and environmental justice. The editorial calls for India to move beyond token environmental clearances and towards “rights-based ecological jurisprudence”, where nature itself becomes a stakeholder.
Recognizing the legal personhood of ecosystems, inspired by global precedents and rooted in India’s constitutional principles (Article 48A and 51A(g)), could redefine environmental governance — ensuring that development does not erase the ecological and cultural identities of India’s fragile frontiers.