New Delhi, Oct. 6 -- The Supreme Court on Monday declined to shut out a former bureaucrat from pursuing her legal challenge to the statutory approvals secured by the Centre and the Andaman and Nicobar administration for the Rs.92,000 crore Great Nicobar Island project, instead asking the Calcutta High Court to fast-track the proceedings and decide the challenge at the earliest. A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said that the issue could not be decided merely on the question of maintainability, which had already been settled by the high court, and indicated that the larger question of whether the public-interest challenge continued to survive would have to be examined. The bench also underlined the constitutional significance of protecting the culture of the indigenous tribes inhabiting the island, while cautioning that considerations of national security could not be allowed to become indistinguishable from commercial exploitation. The court's intervention came during a hearing of the Centre and the Union Territory administration's challenge to the May 6 order of the Calcutta high court's circuit bench at Port Blair, which had rejected their objections to the maintainability of a petition filed by former IAS officer Meena Gupta. Gupta, who has served as secretary in both the Union tribal affairs and environment ministries and was involved in the drafting of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, has challenged the approvals for the project on the ground that they violate the statutory and customary rights of the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese tribes. Senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Gupta, told the bench that the tribal councils had themselves sought to intervene in the proceedings because the two indigenous tribes had complained that they were not heard before the project approvals were granted. Attorney General R Venkataramani, assisted by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, disputed this, saying the tribal communities had been heard. However the bench asked, "They are unique tribes and they need preservation," observed the bench, noting that the Great Andamanese tribes had largely integrated with the mainstream. The question is Shompen tribes, if they want to preserve their uniqueness, should they be able to do so?" The bench went on to underline that preservation of tribal culture was not merely a policy consideration but had constitutional protection. The Attorney General responded that the issue before the court was different and concerned a project of "utmost importance to the nation". Rather than examining the merits of the challenge at this stage, the bench directed that the matter be taken up expeditiously by the high court. "We will request the chief justice of the high court to decide this expeditiously," it said. Muralidhar pointed out that the matter was already fixed for hearing on November 25 and 26. Recording that both sides were agreed that the matter should be decided at the earliest, the Supreme Court directed the high court to complete the pleadings and endeavour to conclude the hearing....