LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of Tamil Nadu can restrict Purse Seine Fishing beyond its territorial waters.
CASE TYPE: Fisheries Law, Constitutional Law
Case Name: Fisherman Care, Registered Association vs. The Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries & Ors.
Judgment Date: 24 January 2023
Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2023
Citation: Fisherman Care, Registered Association vs. The Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8442 of 2021
Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a state government impose restrictions on fishing activities beyond its territorial waters? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment concerning the use of purse seine fishing nets. The court considered the balance between the economic interests of fishermen and the need to protect marine biodiversity. This case involves a challenge to the Tamil Nadu government’s ban on purse seine fishing within its territorial waters and restrictions on vessels using these nets from accessing waters beyond the state’s jurisdiction. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Case Background
The case originated from a ban imposed by the Fisheries Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu on 25th March 2000, which prohibited the use of Purse Seine Fishing nets within its territorial waters (12 nautical miles or 22 km from the coastline). This ban was challenged and upheld by the Madras High Court on 5th February 2019. Subsequently, the Fisherman Care Association filed another writ petition before the Madras High Court, relying on an Expert Committee report to allow Purse Seine Fishing within the territorial waters. The High Court dismissed this petition on 20th April 2021, stating that the government had made an informed decision and the petition was filed by a class of affluent fishermen.
The petitioners in the three writ petitions sought permission to use purse seine fishing nets beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu. Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2022 specifically challenged sub-rule (7) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, which prohibits purse seine fishing in the entire coastal area of the state.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25th March 2000 | Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, banned Purse Seine Fishing within its territorial waters. |
| 5th February 2019 | Madras High Court dismissed the challenge to the ban on Purse Seine Fishing. |
| 20th April 2021 | Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Fisherman Care Association seeking to allow Purse Seine Fishing within territorial waters. |
Course of Proceedings
The Madras High Court initially upheld the ban on Purse Seine Fishing within the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu on 5th February 2019. A subsequent writ petition filed by the Fisherman Care Association, seeking to revisit the issue based on an expert committee report, was also dismissed by the High Court on 20th April 2021. The High Court reasoned that the government had taken an informed decision and that the petition was filed by a class of affluent fishermen. The present case before the Supreme Court is an appeal against this order of the Madras High Court and also includes writ petitions seeking to permit purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of 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 grants the Union of India exclusive jurisdiction over fishing and fisheries beyond the territorial waters of India. The petitioners argued that the State of Tamil Nadu’s restrictions on fishing vessels using purse seine nets, even beyond its territorial waters, were illegal and beyond the state’s jurisdiction. The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, specifically sub-rule (7) of Rule 17, was also under scrutiny, 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.”
This rule was challenged as it effectively prevented fishermen from using purse seine nets even beyond the state’s territorial waters, as their vessels were not allowed to pass through the state’s waters.
Arguments
Arguments by the Petitioners:
- The petitioners argued that the Union of India has exclusive jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters, and the Union has not imposed any restrictions on purse seine fishing.
- They contended that the State of Tamil Nadu’s restrictions on their vessels, preventing them from accessing waters beyond the state’s territorial limits, are illegal and unconstitutional. The State’s powers cannot extend beyond its territorial waters, as per Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
- The petitioners sought interim relief to allow them to fish beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing that they are incurring losses due to the restrictions and that the fishing season is nearing its end.
- They also highlighted that a large number of families are dependent on their fishing activities.
Arguments by the State of Tamil Nadu:
- The State of Tamil Nadu argued that purse seine fishing is a ‘pernicious’ method harmful to marine life and ecology. It is a non-selective fishing technology that captures all kinds of fish, including protected species.
- They submitted that this method is used by affluent fishermen and big fishing companies, while the majority of traditional fishermen cannot afford this technology.
- The State contended that even if the petitioners fish beyond territorial waters, they would be catching fish that move towards the coast, depriving traditional fishermen of their catch.
- The State also argued that it is difficult to monitor and police fishing activities near the territorial waters, making it challenging to enforce restrictions effectively.
- The State argued that the matter is still under consideration and no interim orders should be passed as it would have huge ramifications throughout the country, particularly in the coastal belt.
Arguments by the Union of India:
- The Union of India stated that it has not placed any restrictions on purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioners) | Sub-Submissions (State of Tamil Nadu) |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters | ✓ Only Union of India has jurisdiction. ✓ State restrictions are illegal. ✓ Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. |
✓ State has the right to protect marine life. ✓ Difficult to monitor fishing near territorial waters. |
| Impact of Purse Seine Fishing | ✓ Union of India has not restricted. ✓ Large number of families dependent on this fishing. |
✓ ‘Pernicious’ method harmful to marine life. ✓ Non-selective fishing technology. ✓ Used by affluent fishermen. ✓ Deprives traditional fishermen of their catch. |
| Interim Relief | ✓ Fishing season is ending, huge losses will be incurred. | ✓ Matter is still under consideration. ✓ Interim orders would have huge ramifications. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the order. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the ban imposed by the State Government of Tamil Nadu on Purse Seine Fishing within its territorial waters is justified.
- Whether the State Government can restrict fishing by vessels with purse seine nets beyond its territorial waters.
The Court also considered the sub-issue of whether interim relief should be granted to the petitioners to allow them to fish beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Justification of ban on Purse Seine Fishing within territorial waters | Matter pending consideration | Court noted that this issue is still under consideration and no final decision has been made yet. |
| Restriction on fishing beyond territorial waters | Interim relief granted with conditions | Court allowed Purse Seine Fishing beyond territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), with specific conditions. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- State of Kerala versus Joseph Antony (1994) 1 SCC 301 – Supreme Court of India.
- Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation and Others versus Kerela Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association and Others (1994) 5 SCC 28 – Supreme Court of India.
Legal Provisions:
- Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India – Grants the Union of India exclusive jurisdiction over fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters.
- Section 11 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 – Relates to the registration of fishing vessels.
- Rule 17(7) of Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 – Prohibits purse seine fishing in the entire coastal area of the state.
| Authority | Type | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State of Kerala versus Joseph Antony (1994) 1 SCC 301 | Case | Kept open for deeper consideration. |
| Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation and Others versus Kerela Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association and Others (1994) 5 SCC 28 | Case | Kept open for deeper consideration. |
| Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India | Legal Provision | Used to determine jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters. |
| Section 11 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 | Legal Provision | Used to specify registration requirements for fishing vessels. |
| Rule 17(7) of Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 | Legal Provision | Challenged as it restricts fishing beyond territorial waters. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ submission that State cannot restrict fishing beyond territorial waters | Accepted for interim relief; State’s power to restrict is limited to its territorial waters. |
| State’s submission that Purse Seine Fishing is harmful | Acknowledged, but interim relief granted with conditions to balance interests. |
| Petitioners’ plea for interim relief | Partially granted, allowing fishing beyond territorial waters with conditions. |
| State’s submission that interim relief should not be granted | Rejected, as the court found it necessary to balance the economic interests of the fishermen with the need to protect marine biodiversity. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The Court acknowledged the previous decisions in State of Kerala versus Joseph Antony (1994) 1 SCC 301 and Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation and Others versus Kerela Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association and Others (1994) 5 SCC 28, but kept them open for deeper consideration due to subsequent developments and the stand taken by the Central Government.
- The Court relied on Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India to determine that the Union of India has jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters.
- The Court used Section 11 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 to specify the registration requirements for fishing vessels to be eligible for the interim relief.
- The Court noted the challenge to Rule 17(7) of Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, as it prevents fishing even beyond territorial waters, but did not make a final determination on its validity at this stage.
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 who use purse seine nets with the concerns raised about the environmental impact of this fishing method. The Court noted that the Union of India had not placed any restrictions on purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Court also considered that a large number of families depend on this fishing activity and that the fishing season was coming to an end, which could lead to significant financial losses for the fishermen if they were not allowed to fish.
The Court also considered the fact that other coastal states/union territories had not placed any restrictions on purse seine fishing within their territorial waters. The Court also acknowledged the State of Tamil Nadu’s concerns about the harmful effects of purse seine fishing on marine life and the difficulties in monitoring fishing activities near the territorial waters. However, the Court decided that these concerns could be addressed by imposing strict conditions on the fishing activities rather than imposing a complete ban.
The Court’s approach was to allow purse seine fishing in a regulated manner to ensure that the interests of all parties are protected. The court emphasized that the matter is still under consideration and that a more detailed analysis will be conducted after further inputs are received from the Committee to be set up by the Central Government.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Economic Interests of Fishermen | 35% |
| Environmental Concerns | 25% |
| Jurisdiction of Union of India | 20% |
| Balance of Interests | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Supreme Court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the economic impact on fishermen and the fishing season, than by purely legal considerations. While legal aspects like jurisdiction were considered, the practical implications of the decision played a more significant role.
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as a complete ban on purse seine fishing, but rejected this option in favor of a regulated approach that allows fishing while addressing environmental concerns. The final decision was reached by balancing the competing interests and by imposing strict conditions on the fishing activities.
The Court’s decision allows registered fishing vessels to conduct purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the use of approved Vessel Tracking Systems (VTS), restrictions on fishing days, and mandatory biometric cards for sailors. The Court’s decision was made to balance the economic interests of the fishermen with the environmental concerns raised by the State of Tamil Nadu.
“…we are of a prima facie opinion, that interest of all parties need to be protected. Hence, we propose to pass a restricted interim order, allowing the Purse Seine Fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone, with certain conditions.”
“…the U.O.I. has placed no restrictions on this method of fishing.”
“…considering the subsequent development since 1994 and the stand taken by the Central Government in their affidavits, based on which this restricted interim order is being made, the above two decisions are kept open which will be considered when a deeper consideration is made…”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has allowed purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to certain conditions.
- The State of Tamil Nadu cannot restrict fishing activities beyond its territorial waters, as the jurisdiction lies with the Union of India.
- The Court has emphasized the need to balance the economic interests of fishermen with environmental concerns.
- The interim order is subject to strict conditions, including the use of Vessel Tracking Systems (VTS), restrictions on fishing days, and biometric identification for sailors.
- The matter is still under consideration and a more detailed analysis will be conducted after further inputs from a committee to be set up by the Central Government.
Directions
The Supreme Court has given the following directions:
- Only registered fishing vessels will be given permission to fish beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu.
- The fishing vessels must have an approved Vessel Tracking System (VTS) installed and operational during fishing.
- The vessels will be allowed to operate only twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays.
- The vessels must leave the coastline on or after 8 AM and return by 6 PM on the same day.
- All sailors must carry their biometric cards or photo IDs.
- The code of the VTS must be provided to the Fisheries Department, Marine Police, Coast Guard, and the Indian Navy.
- The Fisheries Department of the State shall give a color code to these Purse Seine Fishing Boats for identification.
- The registration number of the vessels must be prominently displayed on the boat.
- The tracking data of each vessel for each trip must be submitted to the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries, or other designated officer after the vessels reach ashore.
- The boats will be allowed to land/dock only at designated centers.
- The State Fisheries Department shall display on its website the permission granted for Purse Seine Fishing and the registration number of each vessel.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State of Tamil Nadu cannot impose restrictions on fishing activities beyond its territorial waters, as the jurisdiction over such activities lies with the Union of India. This interim order allows purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to strict conditions. This is a change from the previous position where the State of Tamil Nadu had imposed a complete ban on purse seine fishing within its territorial waters and had restricted vessels using these nets from accessing waters beyond the state’s jurisdiction.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s interim order in the case of Fisherman Care Association vs. Union of India allows purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to strict conditions. This decision balances the economic interests of the fishermen with the environmental concerns raised by the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court has clarified that the jurisdiction over fishing beyond territorial waters lies with the Union of India and not with the State. The matter is still under consideration, and a more detailed analysis will be conducted after further inputs from a committee to be set up by the Central Government. This decision marks a significant development in the regulation of fishing activities in India and sets a precedent for balancing economic and environmental interests.