New Delhi: The Andaman and Nicobar Administration has told the Calcutta high court that Gram Sabha meetings held to obtain consent for the Union government’s proposed Rs 92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island Project were conducted with “proper quorum”, despite attendance figures ranging between 2% and 15% of the population in the concerned villages, The Hindu reported.The figures submitted before the court showed that attendance was significantly below the 50% threshold prescribed under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) rules. Based on 2011 Census data, the turnout amounted to 1.83% of the population in Campbell Bay, 14.72% in Laxmi Nagar and 11.98% in Govind Nagar. Altogether, 349 people attended the three meetings representing seven villages with a combined population of 7,519, the report mentioned.Under rules framed for implementing the FRA, a Gram Sabha requires the presence of at least half of the adult population of a village, with one-third women, to meet quorum requirements.In an affidavit filed before the high court, the administration said special Gram Sabha meetings were held on August 12, 2022, in Campbell Bay, Laxmi Nagar, and Govind Nagar, covering seven villages. According to the administration, the meetings were held within half an hour of each other and all three unanimously approved the diversion of forest land for the project, as per TH report.The administration said 105 people attended the Campbell Bay meeting, 163 attended the Laxmi Nagar meeting and 81 attended the Govind Nagar meeting.Also read: Could Rahul Gandhi’s Great Nicobar Visit Turn the Tide on a Contested Project?The affidavits were filed in response to a batch of petitions alleging violations of procedures under the Forest Rights Act in securing consent for the project. Earlier, the Union government had informed the court that it needed time to “demonstrate that consent has been taken from the tribal people”.Defending the process, the administration said the meetings were conducted with “prior notice and proper quorum” and argued that the Forest Rights Act does not prescribe a minimum notice period. It also rejected allegations that tribal communities had been excluded from the process.“It is irrelevant to say that tribal communities were excluded from the FRA process,” the administration said, adding that their “adequate representation” was ensured through the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC), which later recommended forest clearance for the project.The petitioners have challenged both the Gram Sabha resolutions and the constitution of the SDLC itself, as per the report.In a separate affidavit, the petitioner argued that the Nicobarese and Shompen tribal communities are not represented through the Gram Sabha system but through the Tribal Council, which should have been consulted before consent was granted. The petitioner also alleged that names appeared repeatedly across attendance records of all three meetings and, in some cases, within the same attendance list.During the hearing on Wednesday, Additional Solicitor General Ashok Kumar Chakraborty questioned whether the petitioner, a former secretary in the Union Ministries of Tribal Affairs and Environment, had the locus standi to file the public interest litigation. He asked whether the petitioner had obtained authorisation from affected residents of Great Nicobar before approaching the court.The petitioner countered that PIL rules do not require such authorisation and argued that the issues raised before the high court were distinct from proceedings before the National Green Tribunal.Hearing the matter, the high court bench led by Chief Justice Sujoy Paul said arguments had been heard on the “question of preliminary objections regarding locus/maintainability” and that an order would be uploaded later.The dispute over consent for the project has continued since 2022, when the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar withdrew its earlier approval for the project after Stage-I forest clearance was granted. The administration has argued that the withdrawal carried no legal effect because it was not addressed to the appropriate authority and was submitted beyond the 60-day limit after the SDLC’s decision.In its latest affidavit, however, the administration maintained that “The entire matter deserves to be evaluated from a long term, national and strategic perspective.”Meanwhile, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has also informed the high court that it should not be treated as a necessary party in the case, arguing that implementation of the Forest Rights Act is the responsibility of State and Union Territory administrations.