Case Name: Fisherman Care v. Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Rep. by its Secretary and Ors.(with Gnanasekar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.)
Appeal No:  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 8442 OF 2021 With WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 262 OF 2022
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 93
Date of Judgment: 02.09.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Alok Aradhe
Relevant Statutes and Provisions: Article 19(1)(g), Entry 21, List II and Entry 57, List I, Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India, Sections 3(k), 5 and 7, Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983; Rules 15 and 17, Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020; Section 7(1), Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976; Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025

(This judgment addresses whether fishermen using purse seine nets, whose vessels are registered in Tamil Nadu, have a right to transit through the state’s territorial waters in order to fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone beyond it, and how far the state’s ban on purse seine nets within its territorial waters under the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, can be used to restrict that access, once the Union has separately framed rules governing purse seine fishing in the EEZ.)

In this Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of an interlocutory application in a long-pending batch of petitions and held that access to the EEZ for purse seine fishing is now governed by two distinct and non-conflicting regulatory regimes, namely the Union’s Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, for the EEZ, and Tamil Nadu’s Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, for the territorial waters, and directed the State to expeditiously clear pending Access Pass applications and frame a specified transit channel for vessels headed to the EEZ.

FACTS:

In 1983, the State of Tamil Nadu, exercising its legislative competence under Entry 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, enacted the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, to regulate fishing activity in the “specified area”, which is defined under Section 3(k) as the sea along the State’s coastline but not extending beyond its territorial waters. Section 5 empowered the State Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit fishing in this area, and Section 7 required vessel owners to obtain a licence before fishing there.

Acting under Section 5, the State issued G.O. Ms No. 40 dated 25.03.2000, prohibiting pair trawling or fishing with purse seine nets within the territorial waters for conservation of juvenile fish stock. This prohibition was reiterated through Rule 17(7) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, which barred any vessel irrespective of size or engine power from fishing with purse seine nets anywhere in the state’s coastal area, while Rule 15 laid down the specified channels vessels were to follow while transiting out to sea.

Fisherman Care and other applicant-fishermen, whose vessels were fitted with purse seine nets, complained that Tamil Nadu was invoking Rule 17(7) to prevent them from even carrying such nets on board while transiting through the territorial waters to fish in the EEZ beyond twelve nautical miles, which is an area outside the State’s legislative competence. The State, in response, maintained that Rule 17(7) barred the mere carrying of purse seine nets on any vessel, since permitting vessels to carry the nets through the territorial waters created a real risk that they would deploy them within the twelve-nautical-mile limit itself, under the guise of merely transiting to the EEZ, a practice the State said would be near-impossible to detect and enforce against.

The ban had earlier been unsuccessfully challenged before the Madras High Court, which dismissed the writ petition against the G.O. by its judgment dated 20.04.2021. A Special Leave Petition against that dismissal came to be filed, and during its pendency the applicants also moved a writ petition under Article 32 seeking permission to fish with purse seine nets beyond Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters. 

Considering that the relief sought concerned fishing beyond the territorial waters, the Supreme Court, by order dated 24.08.2022, directed the Union to constitute an expert committee to examine the use of purse seine nets by fishermen across maritime states and union territories and to report within three months on the impact of such nets on fish stock in the EEZ.

The Expert Committee’s interim report, submitted on 15.11.2022, took the view that an outright ban on purse seine fishing was not justified and could be permitted subject to conditions including a state-devised access plan restricted to a specified fishing window, a Union-level seine fishery management plan for the EEZ.

Acting on the limited relief sought, transit through the territorial waters to reach the EEZ, the Court, by its interim order dated 24.01.2023, permitted purse seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters, subject to conditions including registration under the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972; installation of a running Vessel Tracking System; sailing restricted to twice a week; fixed departure and return times; mandatory biometric identification for sailors, etc. 

The Expert Committee’s final report, placed on record on 31.05.2024, recommended that special annual permits be issued by the Tamil Nadu authorities for innocent passage of vessels through the territorial waters, based on criteria such as optimum fleet size and vessel age, along with designated landing centres, state guidelines addressing spatial, temporal and technical aspects of net use, a vessel monitoring and distress-alert system with mandatory catch reporting, and a Union-level nodal agency to operate a centralised National Permit System. 

Acting on this recommendation, the Union, in exercise of its power under Section 7(1) of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, on 04.11.2025. These rules created an “Access Pass” system administered by a Central “Issuing Authority” subject to verification by a ‘Verifying Officer’ who is a State officer designated by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. Further it laid down eligibility criteria and an application process, required a Central Fisheries Management Plan, imposed catch-reporting and identity-card obligations, and required prevention of juvenile and illegal fishing in the EEZ.

By the time the matter reached final hearing, however, implementation on the ground had stalled: as of 03.08.2026, of 257 Access Pass applications made on the Registration and Licensing of Fishing Craft (“ReALCRaft”) Portal, 226 remained pending verification by Tamil Nadu, and only six Access Passes had actually been issued the lowest figure among all coastal states.

ISSUES

1. Whether, once the Union had framed the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, to govern purse seine fishing in the EEZ, any conflict remained between Tamil Nadu’s Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, governing the territorial waters.
2. What directions were necessary to secure fishermen’s effective access to the EEZ through the state’s territorial waters?

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS:

Learned counsel for the Petitioner fishermen submitted that the right to fish in the EEZ, beyond twelve nautical miles, fell wholly outside Tamil Nadu’s legislative and executive competence, which under Entry 21 of List II extended only to the territorial waters. It was contended that by invoking Rule 17(7) of the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, to deny their vessels passage through the territorial waters merely because they carried purse seine nets, the State was, in substance, using its limited territorial jurisdiction to defeat a right that only the Union could regulate. Reliance was placed on the Expert Committee’s own findings that purse seine nets caused no significant ecological harm and that an outright ban could not be justified.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:

Learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that Rule 17(7) prohibited fishing with, and carrying of, purse seine nets on any vessel within the coastal area, regardless of the vessel’s ultimate destination, and that this was a legitimate conservation measure within the State’s competence. It was argued that if vessels carrying purse seine nets were freely permitted to pass through the territorial waters en route to the EEZ, there was a real and practically unenforceable risk that such nets would be deployed within the twelve-nautical-mile limit itself under cover of transit, thereby defeating the very purpose of the ban.

JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Two Distinct and Non-Conflicting Regulatory Regimes

The Supreme Court held that the enactment of the EEZ Rules, 2025, by the Union, read together with the continued operation of the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, by the State, had between them put in place the complete legal regime needed to address the applicants’ grievance. The two sets of rules operated in two distinct regulatory provinces, the Union regulate fishing in the EEZ under its executive power flowing from Entry 57 of List I and the State regulating fishing within the territorial waters under Entry 21 of List II, and there was accordingly no conflict between them, since the legislative and executive powers of the Union and the States are, within their respective spheres, co-equal and autonomous.

• Cooperative Federalism 

The Court emphasised that giving effect to this dual regime required the Union and the State to act as duty-bearers under the principle of cooperative federalism so as to ensure that stakeholders could exercise their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable regulation, a proposition for which the Court relied upon the Union of India and Anr. v. Mohit Minerals Private Ltd., (2022) , State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony, (1994) , and Kerala Swathantra Malaya Thozhilali Federation and Others v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association and Others, (1994) . 

• The ReALCRaft Portal Data 

Examining the ReALCRaft Portal data as of 03.08.2026, the Court found that of 257 Access Pass applications, 226 remained pending verification by Tamil Nadu and only six passes had been issued, the lowest among coastal states, and held that such prolonged non-processing of applications virtually amounted to an unwritten ban, which was impermissible in law.

The Court accordingly disposed of the pending Interlocutory Application by directing that the rights and liabilities of the parties would henceforth be governed by the EEZ Rules, 2025, and the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020; that Tamil Nadu must ensure effective, efficient and timely clearance of pending Access Pass applications; and that the State frame the necessary rules or regulations designating a specified channel, under Rules 15(5) and (6) of the 2020 Rules, for the transit of purse-seine vessels from the territorial waters to the EEZ, having regard to the Expert Committee’s final recommendations.