New Delhi: The Rs 81,000-crore Great Nicobar project, originally sold by the government of India as a commercial shipping hub on Galthea Bay on the Nicobar island, became a ‘strategic’ project whose vital details could not be shared with the public in the space of roughly one year.The change in the project’s profile started with a government committee flagging the absence of strategic intent in August 2024, says a report in the Hindu. In March 2026, another government body recorded the same project – by now strongly being opposed by environmentalists – as holding strategic value.Once the nature of the project changed officially, the government refused – despite pleas and protests by a multitude of experts – to shelf or review the project, citing strategic concerns. It also refused to share information on the project’s vital details sought via Right to Information (RTI) requests.Meanwhile, ecologists, public-spirited citizens and several politicians have expressed serious concern over the project’s impact on the ecology.Also read: Great Nicobar Project Entails ‘Perversion of Due Process’ Says Jairam Ramesh In Response To Bhupender Yadav’s Latest LetterAt the same time, there had been no public announcement to indicate that the government had changed the scope of the project from the commercial proposals it began with in 2021, suggests the Hindu report by Jacob Koshy. The report reveals that the Great Nicobar project’s 2021 starting documents, as well as an Expression of Interest from January 2023 described its primary construction – a massive transshipment port – as a more economical way to route cargo. The government then simply said the project would save about $200 million annually.Other associated developments with the port – housing, an airport, a tourism zone and a gas-fired power plant – were also part of the ambitious plans – but nothing indicative of a specific strategic goal or vision.The Hindu reports that it has reviewed documents of the Public Investment Board (PIB), which vets government projects with a financial fallout. According to those documents, in August 2024, the PIB noted that the proposed project, brought by the Union ministry of shipping, did not have “strategic objectives” and that those should be added to it. The same project was then notified as a “strategic project” by the Ministry of Defence, according to records of later meetings, held in March 2026, also viewed by the Hindu.The PIB’s views about the project were shared by the committee that held the March meetings, known as the PPPAC, or Public-Private Partnership Appraisal Committee, a branch of the Union Finance Ministry that must clear projects valued over Rs 500 crore. The Hindu report says it had reviewed those meeting records as well.Commercial questions asked of strategic project?Apart from the human and environmental costs of the project, which have been raised since the project was proposed, the Hindu report details a new aspect: Discussions within the Union government about its cost and viability. At one point, it says, the PPPAC raised questions about the ability of the Great Nicobar project to compete with other large commercial ports in Colombo, Port Klang and Singapore.Also read: ‘Single-Season Surveys Supplemented with Historical Data’: Environment Minister Defends Great Nicobar ClearanceIn response to the shipping ministry’s request that the Union government fund Rs 12,300 crore of the initial construction cost, the PPPAC wanted to know why a commercially viable project needed a subsidy. It also wanted to know why the ministry wanted it to deviate from the norms of viability gap funding for this project. Viability gap funding is a mechanism for the government to cover the shortfall in money to build and infrastructure project, especially those not considered commercially worthwhile by the private sector.The ministry responded that the project would reach viability only 17 years later. The PPPAC still declined the request for funding, saying resources should be raised by the ministry from its own revenues. This, too, undercuts the idea that the project was underpinned by national security or strategic interests.Ultimately, the committee cleared a total estimated cost of Rs 48,862 crore over two phases and a concession period of 50 years – the length of time for which the project developer gets the right to build, operate and earn revenue. The developer in this case is a joint venture of an Indian-owned private entity (55% stake) and major ports, including Chennai-based Kamarajar Port Limited (45% share). In other words, the government support is now to be provided by the developers, who include government bodies bringing in public funds, the shipping ministry and the private entity.Denial of informationIn March 2025, Congress MP Manish Tewari asked a series of questions in Parliament regarding the Great Nicobar project, including why informtion under the RTI Act, 2008, was being denied. In response, the minister of state for statistics and programme implementation, Rao Inderjit Singh, said:The decision on the proposal involving development of Great Nicobar Island project has been taken after due consideration of potential environmental and social impacts and also taking into account the significant strategic, defence and national importance of these developmental projects.The minister did not specifically address the RTI-related query in his ministry’s response. On the human cost of developing a large project on a fragile area, the government replied: “…the subject matter of Environmental Clearance and welfare of tribal communities in the Great Nicobar Island is sub-judice in the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata…”In July 2025, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes refused to share information on the impact of the project on the Great Nicobar Island, saying it would breach “parliamentary privilege“. The RTI request seeking information on primitive tribal groups and the relocation of villages from tiger reserves on the island was filed by a journalist with the Press Trust of India, which reported on the refual.The same month, the government submitted a report by the High-Powered Committee it set up in 2023 to revisit environment clearances to the project to the National Green Tribunal in a sealed cover, the Times of India reported, indicating its unwillingness to make crucial facts about the project public.