February 17, 2026 : National Green Tribunal has dismissed a fresh batch of applications challenging the proposed International Container Transshipment Terminal, township and power project in Great Nicobar Island, holding that no case was made out to interfere with the environmental clearance (EC) granted to the project.
The judgment was delivered on 16 February 2026 by the Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata, comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member), Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member), Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member), and Mr. Ishwar Singh (Expert Member).
The Tribunal was dealing with Original Application Nos. 93/2024/EZ and 95/2024/EZ along with a miscellaneous application in Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ, filed by environmental activist Ashish Kothari against the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and other authorities.
Project Background and Earlier Litigation
The integrated project, proposed by Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Limited, includes: An International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT), Township and area development and A 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant.
The environmental clearance was granted on 11 November 2022. That clearance had already been challenged in an earlier round of litigation. In its order dated 3 April 2023, the Tribunal had observed that “by and large the project is compliant and EC does not call for interference,” but constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to examine three specific issues.
Those issues were: Protection and translocation of coral colonies, Adequacy of baseline environmental data and Whether any part of the project fell within ICRZ-IA areas. This second round of proceedings focused on whether those directions were properly complied with.
Coral Protection: No Violation of ICRZ Prohibition Found
The applicant alleged violation of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification, 2019, particularly the prohibition on destruction of corals.
The Tribunal examined the findings of the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), which reported that: No major coral reef exists within the actual project work area in Galathea Bay, Scattered coral colonies are present in adjoining areas, 16,150 colonies within 15 metres depth may require translocation and The remaining 4,518 colonies at 15–30 metres depth require further study.
The High-Powered Committee accepted ZSI’s recommendations for translocation and long-term monitoring. The Tribunal held that, on the basis of the material on record, it could not be concluded that Clause 3(i) of the ICRZ Notification, which prohibits destruction of corals, had been violated.
The EC conditions also mandate coral translocation, biodiversity monitoring, and funding support to scientific institutions for conservation measures.
Baseline Environmental Data: One Season Found Sufficient
The applicant argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) relied only on one season’s baseline data instead of three seasons, allegedly contrary to norms.
The Tribunal referred to the EIA Guidance Manual for Ports and Harbours, which requires monitoring of one season’s data, excluding monsoon, in line with Central Pollution Control Board norms.
The High-Powered Committee observed that: One season data is standard practice for port projects and No critical erosion zones were identified in Andaman & Nicobar Islands in the relevant government table. Accordingly, the Tribunal found no procedural deficiency on this ground.
No Project Component in ICRZ-IA Area: Ground-Truthing Verified
A central allegation was that part of the port fell within ICRZ-IA areas, where port projects are prohibited. To examine this, the High-Powered Committee directed the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) to: Conduct site visits, Carry out ground-truthing and Authenticate project layout maps After field verification on 17–18 June 2023, NCSCM concluded that no part of the project area fell within ICRZ-IA zones. The High-Powered Committee accepted this conclusion.
The Tribunal also noted that the EC contains binding conditions prohibiting any construction activity in CRZ areas beyond what is permitted under the ICRZ Notification. Any violation during execution would expose the project to further legal challenge.
Strategic and National Importance Emphasised
The Bench reiterated the strategic and national significance of the project. Referring to its earlier findings, it observed that the project has “great significance not only for economic development… but also for defense and national security”.
The order stressed the need for a balanced approach. While ecological safeguards under the ICRZ Notification must be strictly enforced, development projects of strategic importance cannot be stalled on the basis of unsubstantiated apprehensions.
The Tribunal also took note of safeguards built into the EC, including: Dedicated conservation plans for leatherback turtles, megapodes and other endemic species, Funding obligations on the project proponent, Establishment of research stations and Independent monitoring committees for pollution, biodiversity and tribal welfare
Final Decision
Holding that: The environmental clearance had already been upheld in the earlier round, The three issues identified earlier were examined by the High-Powered Committee and Adequate safeguards exist in the EC conditions. The Tribunal found no good ground to interfere.
The applications were disposed of with a direction to the authorities and the project proponent to ensure full and strict compliance with the environmental clearance conditions
Cause Title
Ashish Kothari v. MoEF & CC
Case Details
Original Application No. 93/2024/EZ (IA No. 80/2024/EZ, I.A. No. 110/2025/EZ, I.A No.111/2025/EZ)
WITH Original Application No. 95/2024/EZ (I.A No. 108/2025/EZ, I.A No. 109/2025/EZ)
WITH M.A No. 23/2024/EZ In Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ
