Fisherman Care v. Government of India
“Delay Is an Unwritten Ban: Supreme Court Orders Tamil Nadu to Process Purse Seine Fishing Access Passes and Designate Transit Channels”
TL;DR
Fishermen using purse seine nets sought to transit through Tamil Nadu's territorial waters to fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beyond 12 nautical miles, while the State relied on its ban on purse seine nets in territorial waters, including Rule 17(7) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. After an Expert Committee report and the Union's notification of the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, the Supreme Court held there is no conflict between the Union EEZ Rules and the State Rules, as the Union regulates fishing beyond territorial waters under Entry 57 of List I and the State within territorial waters under Entry 21 of List II. Finding that of 257 Access Pass applications, 226 were pending verification by Tamil Nadu and only 6 passes had been issued, the Court said that not processing applications in time virtually amounts to an unwritten ban, which is impermissible, and directed the State to process them timely and to frame rules designating a transit channel. The interlocutory application was disposed of.
The Bottom Line
The Union controls fishing in the EEZ and the State controls fishing in its territorial waters, and both must work together. Tamil Nadu cannot sit on applications from fishermen who want to use purse seine nets in the EEZ, because delay is the same as a ban that the law does not permit. The State must clear applications efficiently and frame rules for a designated channel through its waters, while its territorial waters ban continues to apply.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act Enacted
The State enacted the 1983 Act under Entry 21 of List II, empowering it to regulate fishing in the specified area within territorial waters.
Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act Enacted
The State enacted the 1983 Act under Entry 21 of List II, empowering it to regulate fishing in the specified area within territorial waters.
G.O. MS No. 40 Prohibits Purse Seine Fishing
The State prohibited pair trawling and purse seine net fishing in the entire coastal areas of Tamil Nadu in territorial waters to conserve juvenile fish stock.
G.O. MS No. 40 Prohibits Purse Seine Fishing
The State prohibited pair trawling and purse seine net fishing in the entire coastal areas of Tamil Nadu in territorial waters to conserve juvenile fish stock.
Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the G.O.; the petitioners then filed SLP (C) No. 8442 of 2021.
Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the G.O.; the petitioners then filed SLP (C) No. 8442 of 2021.
Expert Committee Directed
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the use of purse seine nets and their impact on fish population in the EEZ.
Expert Committee Directed
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the use of purse seine nets and their impact on fish population in the EEZ.
Expert Committee Interim Report
The interim report said a ban on purse seine fishing was not justified and could be allowed subject to conditions, including a State access plan and a fisheries management plan.
Expert Committee Interim Report
The interim report said a ban on purse seine fishing was not justified and could be allowed subject to conditions, including a State access plan and a fisheries management plan.
Interim Arrangement for EEZ Fishing
The Court allowed purse seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters but within the EEZ, subject to conditions on registration, vessel tracking, operating days and landing centres.
Interim Arrangement for EEZ Fishing
The Court allowed purse seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters but within the EEZ, subject to conditions on registration, vessel tracking, operating days and landing centres.
Expert Committee Final Report
The Union placed the final report on record, recommending special annual permits for innocent passage, a monitoring system and a national permit system.
Expert Committee Final Report
The Union placed the final report on record, recommending special annual permits for innocent passage, a monitoring system and a national permit system.
EEZ Rules, 2025 Notified
The Union notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, introducing an Access Pass for fishing in the EEZ.
EEZ Rules, 2025 Notified
The Union notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, introducing an Access Pass for fishing in the EEZ.
Supreme Court Disposes of I.A. with Directions
The Court held the Union and State Rules operate in separate spheres without conflict and directed Tamil Nadu to process Access Pass applications efficiently and frame rules designating a transit channel.
Supreme Court Disposes of I.A. with Directions
The Court held the Union and State Rules operate in separate spheres without conflict and directed Tamil Nadu to process Access Pass applications efficiently and frame rules designating a transit channel.
The Story
In 1983 the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983 under Entry 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The Act defines the "specified area" as the sea along the coastline but not beyond territorial waters, empowers the State to regulate, restrict or prohibit fishing in it, and requires fishing vessel owners to obtain a licence. By G.O. MS No. 40 dated 25 March 2000 the State prohibited fishing by pair trawling or with purse seine nets in the entire coastal areas of Tamil Nadu in the territorial waters, as a measure to conserve juvenile fish stock. The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 then provided in Rule 17(7) that no owner or master of any fishing vessel shall fish by pair trawling or with purse seine net in the entire coastal area of the State, and Rule 15(5) and (6) provide for a specified channel for mechanised vessels to pass through to fishing grounds.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the G.O. by judgment dated 20 April 2021. The petitioners filed SLP (C) No. 8442 of 2021, and the applicants also filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 (W.P. (C) No. 262 of 2022) seeking permission to fish with purse seine nets beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu. The applicants' grievance was that the State invoked the 2020 Rules to prevent them even from carrying purse seine nets to the EEZ beyond 12 nautical miles. The State submitted that under Rule 17(7), even carrying purse seine nets on a fishing vessel violates the ban, and that applicants might employ the nets within 12 nautical miles under the guise of fishing in the EEZ, which is difficult for the State to regulate.
By order dated 24 August 2022 the Court directed the Union of India to constitute an Expert Committee. The committee's interim report of 15 November 2022 said a ban on purse seine fishing was not justified and could be allowed subject to conditions. By order dated 24 January 2023 the Court made an interim arrangement allowing purse seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters but within the EEZ, subject to ten conditions including registration, an approved Vessel Tracking System, operation only on Mondays and Thursdays, and designated landing centres. The Union placed the Expert Committee's final report on record on 31 May 2024. Thereafter, on 4 November 2025, the Union notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025 under Section 7(1) of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, providing for an Access Pass to fish in the EEZ. As on 3 August 2026, per the ReALCRaft Portal, out of 257 applications nearly 226 were pending verification by the State of Tamil Nadu and only 6 Access Passes had been issued, reportedly the lowest among coastal States.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
State cannot prevent carrying purse seine nets to the EEZ
The applicants' grievance was that Tamil Nadu invoked the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 to prevent them even from carrying purse seine nets to the EEZ for fishing beyond 12 nautical miles, an area outside the realm of the State's regulation. Their limited relief was to transit through Tamil Nadu's territorial waters to fish in the EEZ.
Expert Committee found a ban is not justified
The Expert Committee's interim and final reports indicated that purse seine nets do not cause major environmental harm to fish populations in maritime zones, that a blanket ban is not justified, and that effective regulation is needed instead, with special permits for passage through territorial waters.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Even carrying purse seine nets violates the ban under Rule 17(7)
The State of Tamil Nadu submitted that under Rule 17(7), even carrying purse seine nets in a fishing vessel is a violation of the ban imposed by the G.O. dated 25.03.2000 and the 2020 Rules.
Risk of use of nets in territorial waters under guise of EEZ fishing
The State's concern was that, under the guise of fishing in the EEZ, applicants could use purse seine nets within 12 nautical miles, and it is difficult for the State to regulate such activities despite the clear prohibition. The Union placed on record data showing the status of Access Pass applications on the ReALCRaft Portal.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court first narrowed the question to the right of fishermen using purse seine nets to access the EEZ beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters, observing that the I.A. in W.P. (C) No. 262 of 2022 would also encompass the connected batch. It reviewed the State's ban, the Expert Committee's interim and final reports, the interim arrangement of 24 January 2023, and the Union's EEZ Rules, 2025 with their Access Pass framework. It concluded that the Court now had the entire legal regime through which purse seine fishing can be regulated in the EEZ, while addressing the State's concerns within the territorial waters. On federal competence, it held that there were two distinct legal regimes in two regulatory provinces: the EEZ Rules, 2025 for the EEZ and the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 for the territorial waters, without conflict between them. Referring to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's statement in the Constituent Assembly that the Centre and the States are co-equal in their respective spheres, it held that the powers of the Union and the State are co-equal and autonomous in their respective legislative spheres. It then emphasised the principle of cooperative federalism, saying that the Union and the State are duty bearers who must ensure that stakeholders have easy access and efficient clearance of applications to pursue their rights under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable regulation. Finally, as a reality check, it found the applications data disturbing and demonstrating a lack of coordinated endeavour between the Union's Issuing Authority and the State's Verifying Authority, and directed timely processing and framing of transit channel rules.
there is no conflict between the EEZ Rules, 2025 of the Union and the Marine Fishery Regulation Rules, 2020 of the State of Tamil Nadu.
Para 14
The central finding that the two regulatory regimes operate in separate spheres and can coexist.
The powers of both the Union and the State are co-equal and autonomous in each of their legislative spheres.
Para 14
Affirms the federal balance between the Union (Entry 57, List I) and the State (Entry 21, List II) over marine fisheries.
it is necessary for the Union and the State to abide by the principle of cooperative federalism.
Para 15
Places a joint duty on the Union and the State to implement their regulations efficiently so that stakeholders can pursue their Article 19(1)(g) rights.
Not processing the applications in time, virtually amounts to imposing an unwritten ban, which is impermissible in law.
Para 16
Holds that administrative delay in verifying Access Pass applications can be equivalent to a ban the law does not authorise.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Fishermen applying to fish in the EEZ with purse seine nets get a defined legal pathway: Access Passes under the Union's EEZ Rules, 2025, timely verification by Tamil Nadu, and a designated transit channel through the territorial waters, while the State's ban on purse seine fishing within territorial waters continues to apply.
Directions Issued
- The rights and liabilities of the parties will now be governed by the relevant laws, the EEZ Rules, 2025 and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020
- The State Government shall frame necessary rules or regulations designating a specified channel under Rules 15(5) and (6) of the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 for transit of vessels from its territorial waters to the EEZ for fishing using purse seine nets, after taking into account the final recommendations of the Expert Committee
- The State of Tamil Nadu shall ensure effective, efficient and timely clearance of Access Pass applications as per the rules and regulations governing the subject
Key Legal Principles Established
The Union has legislative and executive competence over fishing beyond territorial waters (Entry 57, List I), while the State regulates fisheries in territorial waters (Entry 21, List II); both powers are co-equal and autonomous in their spheres.
Union and State regulations over fishing in the EEZ and territorial waters can operate together without conflict.
Cooperative federalism requires the Union and the State to implement their regulations efficiently and ensure easy access and prompt clearance of applications by stakeholders.
Fishing is a livelihood activity protected by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable regulation.
Failing to process applications within a reasonable time virtually amounts to an unwritten ban, which is impermissible in law.
Environmental sustainability and livelihood concerns are balanced through regulation, such as vessel monitoring, catch reporting and permits, rather than outright blanket bans where expert evidence does not support them.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Fishermen who want to fish in India's Exclusive Economic Zone using purse seine nets must now apply for an Access Pass under the Union's EEZ Rules, 2025.
- State governments cannot delay these applications indefinitely; the Court said delay amounts to an unwritten ban.
- Tamil Nadu's ban on purse seine fishing in its own territorial waters continues to apply.
- The State must set up a specified channel through its waters for purse seine vessels to travel to the EEZ.
- The EEZ Rules require measures such as reporting of fish catch, identity cards for crew and prohibition of juvenile fishing.
- The Court noted that only 6 Access Passes had been issued by Tamil Nadu out of 257 applications, the lowest among coastal States.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 57 and List II Entry 21
Constitution of India
“Entry 57 of List I covers fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters; Entry 21 of List II covers fisheries.”
Relevance: The Court held the Union regulates fishing beyond territorial waters and the State regulates fisheries in its territorial waters, each in its own autonomous sphere.
Article 19(1)(g)
Constitution of India
“All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.”
Relevance: The Court stated that the Union and the State must ensure efficient clearance of applications so that stakeholders can pursue their rights under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable regulation.
Article 32
Constitution of India
“Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.”
Relevance: The applicants filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking permission to undertake purse seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu.
Statutory Provisions
Sections 3(k), 5 and 7
Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983
“Section 3(k) defines the specified area as an area in the sea along the coastline, not beyond territorial waters; Section 5 empowers the State to regulate, restrict or prohibit fishing; Section 7 requires a licence to fish in the specified area.”
Relevance: The statutory basis of the State's G.O. dated 25.03.2000 and the Rules, confined to territorial waters.
Rules 15(5), 15(6) and 17(7)
Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020
“Rule 15 provides for specified channels for mechanised and deep-sea vessels; Rule 17(7) prohibits pair trawling and fishing with purse seine nets in the entire coastal area of the State.”
Relevance: The Court directed the State to frame rules designating a specified channel under Rules 15(5) and (6) for transit to the EEZ.
Rules 2, 3, 4, 8, 12 to 15
Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025
“Provide for an Access Pass for fishing in the EEZ, its issuance by an Issuing Authority and verification by a State Verifying Officer, a fisheries management plan, catch reporting, identity cards and prohibition of juvenile fishing.”
Relevance: The Union framework under which fishermen must now apply for access to the EEZ, notified on 04.11.2025 under Section 7(1) of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976.
Related Cases & Precedents
Union of India & Anr. v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
cited(2022) 10 SCC 700
Cited (paragraphs 51 to 54) in the footnote supporting the statement that the Union and State are duty bearers whose stakeholders pursue Article 19(1)(g) rights subject to reasonable regulation.
State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony
cited(1994) 1 SCC 301
Cited (paragraph 28) in the same footnote on reasonable regulation of the right to pursue fishing.
Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation & Ors. v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators' Association & Ors.
cited(1994) 5 SCC 28
Cited (paragraph 27) in the same footnote, alongside the above two decisions.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Fisherman Care v. Government of India - Kannada Explanation
Tamil
Fisherman Care v. Government of India - Tamil Explanation
Telugu
Fisherman Care v. Government of India - Telugu Explanation
Hindi
Fisherman Care v. Government of India - Hindi Explanation
English
Fisherman Care v. Government of India - English Explanation
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.