Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Wednesday wrote to Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, saying the Great Nicobar Island Project as presently conceived is "overwhelmingly a commercial enterprise" and the unique biodiversity of the area is being endangered.
In his response to Yadav's letter of May 27 which was a reply to his earlier letter, Ramesh said his letter on May 10 was a simple plea to comply, in letter and spirit, with the law in assessing the ecological impacts of the Project in a comprehensive manner, given that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report of March 2022 itself had stated that it is only a rapid reconnaissance study.
"I am so glad you have admitted that the environmental clearance was not based on comprehensive EIA studies based on three seasons primary data and primary data was collected over only a 'single seasonal cycle'," the former environment minister said.
"But I wish to, however, point out that the studies mentioned by you in the reply are not even based on primary data collected over 'single seasonal cycle' as claimed. The reports themselves admit that baseline data/surveys for these reports were collected only over a few weeks. I had extracted portions of these reports for your convenience," Ramesh pointed out in his letter to Yadav.
"A substantial portion of your reply has been dedicated to the claim that institutions under the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change possess historical data sets which have been used in the impact assessment reports prepared by them," the Congress general secretary in-charge communications said.
The Congress leader said Yadav would be aware of the difference between primary data collected at the project site and its impact areas and secondary data collected from pre-existing studies.
Secondary data is just not a substitute for primary data collection and project-specific studies, Ramesh pointed out.
"Your letter repeatedly mentions judgments of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated April 3, 2023 and February 16, 2026 in response to the issues I have brought to your attention. I have read these judgments carefully again and wish to inform you that: In the judgment dated April 3, 2023, para 33 expressly records that there are 'unanswered deficiencies' in the environmental clearance issued to the project and proceeds to list three, including the need for a comprehensive EIA and remanded the clearance for re-examination," Ramesh said.
In the judgment dated February 16, 2026, para 46 records the submissions of the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change on the erosion status of Galathea Bay, the Congress leader said.
The report of ISRO's Space Applications Centre has clearly marked stretches of the eastern flank of Galathea Bay in red, indicating erosion, Ramesh pointed out.
"You will recall that under the Island Coastal Zone Regulation, 2019, ports are prohibited in 'high' erosion stretches and comprehensive EIA study is necessary in low and medium' erosion stretches. Given the fact that ISRO'S report has marked erosion along Galathea Bay's shoreline, is it not prudent to conduct comprehensive EIA studies over three seasons to account for seasonal variations?" Ramesh said.
The judgment dated February 16, 2026 does not contain any finding on the adequacy of the data collection and EIA studies as claimed in Yadav's reply, the Congress leader said.
"It is truly extraordinary and even unprecedented that those who have prepared the EIA report and other studies and those who have had them prepared have ended up reviewing their own work and found it to be fine. This is a perversion of due process," Ramesh alleged.
"The judgment of the NGT dated February 16, 2026 as also your reply has completely ignored para 5 (D) of the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Environment and Forests dated November 3, 2009 that mandates 'comprehensive environment impact assessment, including physical and mathematical modelling and ground verification for all port projects in Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep Islands'," Ramesh said.
The February 16 judgement as also your reply ignores annexure 6 of the EIA guidance manual for ports and harbours that had been issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and that states 'physical, chemical and biological data has to be collected in two to three seasons so as to understand their impact in different seasons like pre- and post-monsoon", Ramesh said.
Pointing out that Yadav wrote that conditions have been imposed to safeguard biodiversity, he said these conditions are actually irrelevant in determining whether adequate studies and assessments have been conducted prior to clearance.
Clearly, that has not been done, he added.
"I have requested you to make public the report of the High-Powered Committee that was inexplicably handed over in a 'sealed cover' to the NGT in October 2025 Records leading to the clearance for the project are in the public domain," Ramesh said.
Both the master plan for the township, and the detailed project report for the airport are also in the public domain, he said.
Ramesh said he simply fails to understand why and how the re-examination of the clearance process becomes confidential.
"I find the narrative on the Great Nicobar Island Project has suddenly shifted. Faced with incontrovertible evidence of its hugely adverse ecological impacts, the Union Government is now emphasizing its supposed strategic rationale. I have written to Raksha Mantri separately suggesting, as indeed some distinguished defence experts themselves have, that India's strategic objectives will be better met by the expansion of INS Baaz located in Campbell Bell on Great Nicobar as well of other assets of the Andaman and Nicobar Command across that archipelago," Ramesh said.
The Project as presently conceived is overwhelmingly a commercial enterprise, he argued.
Ramesh and Yadav have exchanged several letters over the issue with the former slamming the government over the project and claiming it would cause great ecological damage.
Also read: Great Nicobar plan a recipe for disaster: Jairam to Rajnath
Follow us
