Madras High Court upholds DG Shipping circular requiring on‑board training while declining to revive mandatory MoU and placement conditions

A Division Bench of Justices S. M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan heard writ appeals arising from challenges to Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) circulars dated 24.04.2020 and 27.05.2020 and the Single Judge's order dated 18.08.2020 that dismissed writ petitions by maritime institutes. The appeals (W.A. No. 481 of 2021 and W.A. No. 919 of 2020) contested the legality of DGS directions relating to pre‑sea courses and ship‑board/on‑board training requirements introduced after an earlier batch order in WP No. 40370 of 2016.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Single Judge's conclusion that the impugned circulars were in consonance with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), the STCW Rules, 2014 and prior directions of this Court. The Bench held that the earlier order had struck down only the condition requiring institutes to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with shipping companies and compulsory placement, and not the requirement that institutes ensure on‑board training. As the Court observed, "just because the institution may find difficult to provide an on‑board training, that by itself cannot be a ground to interfere with the circular." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "92. To sum up the writ petitions are disposed of with the following findings and directions:‑ (i) The Director General of Shipping is the authority vested with absolute power to regulate all training programmes and granting of Certificates; (ii) As far as Diplomas, Degrees and Post Graduate Diplomas offered by the Institutes affiliated to Universities, the policy of the Central Government binds the Universities and the Institutes affiliated to the Universities. DGS power to prescribe minimum eligibility marks for admission in Diploma and degree courses flows from Entry 25 in List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. (iii) Any order or regulation issued by DGS shall be with the object to enhance the quality of training and standard of education and not detrimental to the object; (iv) MoU with Shipping company for onboard training for specified number of candidates and restricting the admission to that specified number alone is an onerous condition; (v) Continuation of approval based on placement within specified period is unconstitutional and ultra vires and (vi) In superintendence of orders and training circulars, the DGS is directed to frame a composite regulation for institutes offering Marine Education and training within four months from the date of this order. Till such time, except clauses regarding tie up for on board training and placement which is struck down as unconstitutional all other clauses in the orders and circulars shall be in force."

Background The dispute arose after DGS issued an October 2019 circular directing maritime institutions to admit students only when there was a secured place for on‑board training and to enter into MoUs with shipping companies. Those conditions were challenged in WP No. 40370 of 2016; this Court in its September 2019 order recognised DGS's regulatory authority but struck down the compulsory placement and the MoU requirement as "onerous" and "unconstitutional", while directing DGS to frame a composite regulation and to guide institutes in accordance with the STCW regime. In April–May 2020 DGS issued fresh circulars to align domestic training with STCW standards. Petitioners (Maritime Education and Training Institutes Association and International Maritime Academy) contended that the new circulars resurrected the struck‑down conditions and curtailed student and institute liberty; they relied upon the earlier co‑ordinate Bench ruling and cited judicial discipline principles. The respondents (Government of India and DGS) maintained that the new circulars did not impose MoUs or mandatory placement and only required institutes to "arrange for an on‑board training" consistent with international obligations. The Single Judge accepted the respondents' submissions and found the circulars consonant with STCW; the Division Bench agreed, distinguishing the earlier order by noting that what was struck down earlier was the requirement of tie‑up/MoU and mandatory placement, not the on‑board training mandate itself. The appeals were dismissed, no costs were imposed and connected misc. petitions were closed. The Court recorded that DGS retained authority to frame composite regulations and to ensure training met statutory and international standards.

Case Details: Case No.: WA No. 481 of 2021 and W.A. No. 919 of 2020 NeutralCitation: 2026:MHC:1041 Case Title: The Maritime Education And Training Institutes Association & Anr. v. The Government of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P. Godson Swaminath (for M/s. Isaac Chambers) in W.A. No.481 of 2021; Mr. B. Jegannath (for Mr. Abishek Jenasenan) in W.A. No.919 of 2020 For the Respondent(s): Mr. B. Sudhir Kumar (for R1 and R2)