Back
Supreme Court Calls for in Tamil Nadu Purse Seine Fishing Dispute
The has directed the to ensure the timely processing of Access Passes for fishermen seeking to use purse seine nets in the , calling for a spirit of between the Union and State governments. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe disposed of an in a batch of cases concerning the right of fishermen to transit through Tamil Nadu’s to fish beyond the 12-nautical-mile limit.
The Core Controversy
The dispute originated from a Government Order (G.O. MS No. 40) issued by Tamil Nadu under the , which banned the use of purse seine nets within the state’s as a conservation measure. The ban was reinforced by . Fishermen challenged the ban, arguing that the state was using it to prevent them from even carrying purse seine nets through to reach the EEZ, where fishing beyond 12 nautical miles falls under central jurisdiction.
The state countered that allowing vessels to carry the nets through would create enforcement difficulties, as fishermen might use them illegally within the 12-nautical-mile zone.
and Central Framework
In , the Supreme Court directed the to constitute an to study the impact of purse seine fishing. The committee’s interim report in concluded that a on purse seine nets was not justified and recommended effective regulation rather than prohibition. Its final report in suggested special annual permits for through , spatial and temporal regulations, and a national permit system for fishing in the EEZ.
Acting on these recommendations, the notified the () in . These rules establish an system for fishing vessels in the EEZ, with the ’s Issuing Authority and a State-designated Verifying Officer responsible for document verification and physical inspection.
Legal Analysis: Two
The Supreme Court clarified that there is no conflict between the and the . The power to regulate fisheries beyond falls under (Union List), while the regulation of fisheries in vests with the State under . The Court observed, “The powers of both the Union and the State are in each of their ,” quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s foundational statement on federalism.
The Court emphasized that both the Union and State administrations are “ not only to implement the respective regulations within their province, but also to ensure that the stakeholders have easy access and efficient clearance of their applications to pursue their under , of course subject to .”
A ‘Rather Disturbing’ Delay
The Court expressed serious concern over the status of applications on the Registration and Licensing of Fishing Craft Portal (ReALCRaft Portal). As of , out of 257 applications, 226 were still pending verification by the , with only six passes issued—the lowest among all coastal states. The Court termed this “rather disturbing” and stated, “Not processing the applications in time, virtually amounts to imposing an , which is .”
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The Union as well as the State administration, are the not only to implement the respective regulations within their province, but also to ensure that the stakeholders have easy access and efficient clearance of their applications to pursue their under .”
“It is necessary for the Union and the State to abide by the principle of .”
“Not processing the applications in time, virtually amounts to imposing an , which is .”
Court’s Directions
The Supreme Court disposed of the with two main directions. First, the rights and liabilities of the parties will be governed by the relevant laws—the and the . Second, the State Government must frame rules or regulations designating a specified channel under for the transit of vessels from to the EEZ for purse seine fishing, taking into account the ’s final recommendations. The Court also directed the State to ensure effective, efficient, and timely clearance of applications for Access Passes.
