The of Orissa at Cuttack has ordered the to take immediate charge of the foreign crew stranded aboard the cargo vessel MT Unity, which has been anchored at since . In a landmark decision, the court directed the relevant government authorities to facilitate the disembarkation and repatriation of the master, Istyagin Evegeny Nikolaevich, and his 22 crew members. The court emphasized that the vessel is effectively abandoned, holding the state responsible for the crew’s safety and dignity as mandated under the , and international maritime conventions.
The court’s ruling requires the government to arrange for the replacement of the crew and to coordinate their safe departure from the port premises. Recognizing that the vessel’s owner and charterer have failed in their primary obligations to provide food, water, and wages, the court held that the cost of these humanitarian interventions should be treated as a debt recoverable from the vessel owner or their agents as a . The ruling marks a significant intervention, providing a lifeline to crew members who have been living in precarious conditions for months due to legal disputes and the alleged abandonment by the vessel’s management.
A Humanitarian Crisis at Sea
The situation onboard MT Unity reached a critical point after the vessel was arrested in multiple beginning . As legal battles unfolded regarding maritime claims, the ship’s owner and charterer ceased communication and stopped providing necessary provisions. For the crew, this resulted in an existential crisis. The petitioner, the vessel’s master, highlighted that contracts for himself and many others had expired months ago, yet they remained trapped at the anchorage. The lack of material and technical supplies, including drinking water and fuel for essential machinery, led to severe safety risks for the crew.
The petitioner, a Russian national, repeatedly alerted the and the insurance provider, , to the deteriorating conditions. While the insurer eventually stepped in to provide limited temporary supplies, they lacked the authority to organize a full crew change. The noted that the crew’s continued presence on the ship, amid failing equipment and psychological distress, constituted an infringement of their fundamental rights.
and Flag State Failure
In its deliberations, the court rejected arguments from the Union government and the port authorities that the responsibility remained entirely with the ship’s owner or the parties involved in the
. Justice R.K. Pattanaik underscored that under the current
, the state holds a specific statutory duty toward
. The court observed,
"Not only the Owner has failed to discharge the
but also the vessel has been detained by the orders of this Court in
and hence, according to
, the vessel has become an '
' and the crew members are its
."
The court further pointed to , which empowers the Central Government to arrange for replacement crew and bear the costs of repatriation when a vessel is abandoned near the Indian coast. By ratifying the , India has committed to protecting seafarers within its jurisdiction, and the court maintained that these international standards must be enforced when owners abandon their ships.
Enforcing Fundamental Rights for Foreign Seafarers
A central pillar of the judgment was the application of
, which guarantees the
. Although the crew members are foreign nationals, the court ruled that their right to live with dignity is universal and must be upheld within Indian waters.
"The crew members and the petitioner cannot be left abandoned indefinitely till the maritime claims are settled,"
the court noted, emphasizing that the bureaucratic delays in settling civil maritime claims could not be used as an excuse to neglect the human rights of the individuals trapped on board.
The ruling drew upon established legal precedents that characterize the right to life as more than a "mere animal existence." By ensuring a humane and healthy environment for the crew, the court affirmed that the state cannot remain a passive observer when lives are at stake. The court noted:
"The abandonment of seafarers is undoubtedly a labour rights violation. It is not merely a technical breach of contract, but it represents a humanitarian crisis."
Operational Hurdles and Recovery of Costs
The Authority had argued that the ship’s extended presence at the anchorage posed a security threat to its oil jetties and single-point mooring systems. However, the court found that the port must cooperate with the repatriation process rather than citing these risks to delay the crew's departure. The court ordered that all relevant authorities, including the and port officials, must work in concert to facilitate the sign-off process within three weeks.
Regarding the financial burden, the court clarified that the government’s expenditure on the repatriation process is not a permanent loss for the state. By classifying these costs as a , the court ensured that the government could recover funds through the sale of the vessel or its cargo, ensuring that the ship’s owner—rather than the Indian taxpayer—is ultimately held liable for the abandonment.
This judgment serves as a vital reminder of the enforcement of the Merchant Shipping Act in modern maritime law. By prioritizing the welfare of the seafarers over the complexities of admiralty litigation, the court has set a clear path for the repatriation of the crew members of MT Unity, ensuring that their ordeal at the Paradip anchorage is brought to an end without further delay. The parties are now expected to comply with the directive to oversee the safe disembarkation and ensure that the vessel is maintained in a safe state as legal proceedings regarding the maritime claims continue.
abandonment of seafarers - maritime labour rights - vessel repatriation - statutory obligations under shipping law
