Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 82
Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a State government restrict fishing activities beyond its territorial waters? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the use of Purse Seine Fishing nets. The court, while not fully resolving the matter, has allowed fishing using Purse Seine nets beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, subject to certain conditions. This interim order seeks to balance the interests of various stakeholders while a more comprehensive examination of the issue is conducted. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Case Background
The case involves a challenge to the restrictions imposed by the Tamil Nadu government on Purse Seine Fishing. The Fisheries Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu had banned the use of Purse Seine Fishing nets within its territorial waters (12 nautical miles or 22 km from the coastline) via an order dated 25th March 2000. This ban was upheld by the Madras High Court on 5th February 2019. Subsequently, the Fisherman Care Association filed another writ petition before the Madras High Court, seeking to revisit the issue based on an Expert Committee report. However, the High Court dismissed this petition on 20th April 2021, stating that the government had made an informed decision and that the petition was filed by a class of affluent fishermen.
The petitioners in the current case are challenging the ban on Purse Seine Fishing within the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu and seeking permission to use these nets beyond the territorial waters. They argue that the State government’s restrictions are illegal and that the Union of India has jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25th March 2000 | Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, bans Purse Seine Fishing within its territorial waters. |
| 5th February 2019 | Madras High Court dismisses challenge to the ban on Purse Seine Fishing. |
| 20th April 2021 | Madras High Court dismisses writ petition by Fisherman Care Association seeking to revisit the ban. |
| 24th January 2023 | Supreme Court issues an interim order allowing Purse Seine Fishing beyond Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters with conditions. |
Course of Proceedings
The Fisheries Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu had banned the use of Purse Seine Fishing nets within its territorial waters (12 nautical miles or 22 km from the coastline) vide its Order dated 25th March, 2000. The Madras High Court dismissed the challenge to this order on 5th February, 2019. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed by Fisherman Care Association before the Madras High Court, relying on an Expert Committee report, seeking to revisit the issue. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed this petition on 20th April, 2021, holding that the Government had taken an informed decision and that the petition was by only “a class of affluent fishermen”.
Legal Framework
The petitioners argue that the State government’s restrictions on fishing beyond its territorial waters are illegal, citing Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, which states:
“57. Fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters.”
This entry, according to the petitioners, places the jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters exclusively with the Union of India. The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, specifically sub-rule (7) of Rule 17, was also discussed, which states:
“(7) No owner or master of a fishing vessels shall carry on fishing by pair trawling or fishing with purse seine net using any fishing vessel or craft whether country craft or mechanised boat irrespective of their size and power of the engine in the entire coastal area of the State.”
The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972, particularly Section 11, was also mentioned as it pertains to the registration of fishing vessels.
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The State of Tamil Nadu does not have the jurisdiction to impose any restrictions for fishing beyond its territorial waters.
- The Union of India has not placed any restrictions on fishing by the method called ‘Purse Seine Fishing’.
- The powers of the State Legislatures and its executive cannot extend beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, as this subject falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union of India, as per Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
- The State government’s actions are preventing them from fishing even in waters beyond the state’s jurisdiction.
- A large number of families are dependent on the fishing activity of the petitioners.
- They have invested heavily in vessels and Purse Seine Fishing Nets.
State of Tamil Nadu’s Arguments:
- Purse Seine Fishing (PSF) is a ‘pernicious’ method of fishing, harmful to marine life and ecology.
- PSF is a non-selective fishing technology that captures all kinds of fish, including protected species.
- This method is used by affluent fishermen or big fishing companies, not by traditional fishermen.
- Even if the petitioners fish beyond the territorial limits, they will catch fish that migrate towards the coast, depriving traditional fishermen of their catch.
- It is difficult for the State Government to monitor or police fishing around the territorial waters.
- The matter is under consideration, and no interim orders should be passed.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioners) | Sub-Submissions (State of Tamil Nadu) |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters | ✓ Only the Union of India has jurisdiction. ✓ State cannot impose restrictions beyond its territorial waters. |
✓ State has the right to protect marine life and traditional fishermen. ✓ Difficult to monitor fishing beyond territorial waters. |
| Legality of restrictions on Purse Seine Fishing | ✓ Union of India has not restricted Purse Seine Fishing. ✓ State’s restrictions are illegal and unconstitutional. |
✓ Purse Seine Fishing is harmful to marine life and ecology. ✓ It is a non-selective method used by affluent fishermen. |
| Impact on livelihoods | ✓ Many families depend on Purse Seine Fishing. ✓ Petitioners have invested heavily in this method. |
✓ Traditional fishermen will be deprived of their catch. ✓ Purse Seine Fishing is not affordable for traditional fishermen. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court is whether the ban imposed by the State Government of Tamil Nadu within its territorial waters is justified. Additionally, the court is considering the interim relief sought by the petitioners to fish beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Justification of the ban within territorial waters | The Court acknowledged that this issue is pending consideration and that no interim order has been passed by the Court. |
| Interim relief to fish beyond territorial waters | The Court granted interim relief, allowing Purse Seine Fishing beyond Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to certain conditions. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Cited by the petitioners to argue that the Union of India has exclusive jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters. | Jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters |
| Sub-rule (7) of Rule 17 of Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 | Tamil Nadu Government | Cited as the basis for the ban on Purse Seine Fishing in the entire coastal area of the State. | Restrictions on Purse Seine Fishing |
| Section 11 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 | Central Government | Cited for the registration of fishing vessels, which is a condition for the interim relief. | Registration of fishing vessels |
| State of Kerala versus Joseph Antony (1994) 1 SCC 301 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the State of Tamil Nadu as making adverse comments on Purse Seine Fishing. However, the court kept this decision open for further consideration. | Adverse comments on Purse Seine Fishing |
| Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation and Others versus Kerela Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association and Others (1994) 5 SCC 28 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the State of Tamil Nadu as making adverse comments on Purse Seine Fishing. However, the court kept this decision open for further consideration. | Adverse comments on Purse Seine Fishing |
Judgment
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments of both sides, passed an interim order allowing Purse Seine Fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to the following conditions:
- Only registered fishing vessels, as of the date of the order, will be given permission. These vessels must be registered under Section 11 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972, and with the State Government.
- The vessels must be installed with an approved Vessel Tracking System (VTS), which must be kept running during operation.
- The vessels will be allowed to operate only twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays, with other non-fishing period restrictions applying.
- The vessels must leave the coastline on or after 8 AM and return to the designated place by 6 PM on the same day.
- All sailors must carry their biometric card/photo ID.
- The VTS code must be provided to the Fisheries Department, Marine Police, Coast Guard, and the Indian Navy.
- The Fisheries Department of the State will provide a color code to these Purse Seine Fishing Boats.
- The Registration Number of these vessels must be prominently displayed on the boat.
- The tracking data of each vessel must be submitted to the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries, after each trip.
- The boats can only land/dock at designated centers.
- The State Fisheries Department must display the permission granted for Purse Seine Fishing on its website, along with the registration number of each vessel.
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ submission that the State has no jurisdiction beyond territorial waters | The Court acknowledged the submission and granted interim relief to fish beyond territorial waters. |
| Petitioners’ submission that the Union of India has not restricted Purse Seine Fishing | The Court noted that the Union of India has not placed restrictions and allowed fishing in EEZ. |
| State’s submission that Purse Seine Fishing is harmful | The Court acknowledged this concern but allowed fishing with restrictions. |
| State’s submission that it is difficult to monitor fishing | The Court imposed conditions such as VTS, designated centers, and tracking data submission. |
| Authority | How It Was Viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| State of Kerala versus Joseph Antony (1994) 1 SCC 301 | The Court acknowledged the adverse comments on Purse Seine Fishing but kept the decision open for further consideration due to subsequent developments. |
| Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation and Others versus Kerela Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association and Others (1994) 5 SCC 28 | The Court acknowledged the adverse comments on Purse Seine Fishing but kept the decision open for further consideration due to subsequent developments. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim relief was influenced by several factors. The court aimed to balance the economic interests of the fishermen using Purse Seine nets with the concerns raised about the environmental impact and the livelihoods of traditional fishermen. The Court also took into account the fact that the Union of India has not imposed any restrictions on Purse Seine Fishing beyond the territorial waters. The court’s decision also reflects a concern for the immediate economic needs of the fishermen who have invested in this method of fishing, while also ensuring that the fishing is done in a regulated and monitored manner. The court also considered that the fishing season was coming to an end by February 2023.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Balancing economic interests of fishermen | 30% |
| Environmental impact and concerns | 25% |
| Livelihoods of traditional fishermen | 20% |
| Union of India’s stance on Purse Seine Fishing | 15% |
| Immediate economic needs of the fishermen | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court emphasized the need to protect the interests of all parties involved and to ensure that fishing is conducted in a sustainable manner. The interim order was made to regulate the fishing activity while the matter is pending consideration. The Court also noted that the Central Government is examining these aspects and a report is expected.
Logical Reasoning
The court considered the arguments from both sides and the fact that the Union of India has not placed any restrictions on Purse Seine Fishing beyond the territorial waters. The court also considered the economic impact on the fishermen who use this method. The court balanced these factors by allowing fishing with restrictions to ensure that it is done in a regulated manner.
The court stated that it is of a prima facie opinion, that the interest of all parties needs to be protected. The court also stated that the interim order was being made considering the subsequent developments since 1994 and the stand taken by the Central Government in their affidavits.
The court also noted that: “There is definitely a conflict of economic interests, between fishermen. Biological diversity is another aspect which may fall for our consideration here. But on all these aspects, we do not have a full report before us as yet.”
The court also stated: “Petitioners submit that only Union of India has jurisdiction beyond the territorial waters, which has placed no restrictions on fishing by the method called ‘Purse Seine Fishing’.”
The court also observed: “We have been informed at the bar that some of the coastal States/Union Territories such as Gujarat, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Goa and West Bengal have not made any restrictions on Purse Seine Fishing, within its territorial waters. This ban has been imposed by the State of Tamil Nadu and also by the State of Maharashtra.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has allowed Purse Seine Fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), on an interim basis.
- This permission is subject to strict conditions, including registration of vessels, use of Vessel Tracking Systems, and limitations on fishing days and times.
- The court has balanced the economic interests of fishermen using Purse Seine nets with concerns about environmental impact and the livelihoods of traditional fishermen.
- The matter is still under consideration, and the court will make a final decision after receiving a report from a committee to be set up by the Central Government.
- The decision highlights the complex interplay between state and central jurisdictions in matters of fishing and marine resources.
Directions
The Supreme Court has directed that:
- Only registered fishing vessels will be given permission to fish using Purse Seine nets.
- These vessels must be equipped with a Vessel Tracking System (VTS).
- Fishing is allowed only twice a week (Mondays and Thursdays).
- Vessels must adhere to specific timings for leaving and returning to the coast.
- The State Fisheries Department will display the permission granted for Purse Seine Fishing on its website.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the State Government has the power to regulate fishing within its territorial waters, it cannot impose restrictions on fishing beyond its territorial waters, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Union of India. The court has also balanced the economic interests of the fishermen using Purse Seine nets with the concerns about the environmental impact and the livelihoods of traditional fishermen. This interim order is a departure from the previous position where the Madras High Court had upheld the ban on Purse Seine Fishing.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s interim order in the Fisherman Care Association case provides a temporary solution to the conflict surrounding Purse Seine Fishing. While the court has allowed this method of fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, it has also imposed strict conditions to regulate the activity. The final decision on the matter will depend on the report of the committee to be set up by the Central Government. This case highlights the complex issues involved in balancing economic interests, environmental concerns, and jurisdictional powers in the context of marine resources.