State Delay In Processing Access Passes Amounts To Unwritten Ban: SC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Rebuking bureaucratic inertia that stifles constitutional freedoms, the Supreme Court has declared that delayed administrative verification of fishing permissions operates as an impermissible unwritten ban on fishermen seeking to operate in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Emphasizing the doctrine of cooperative federalism, the Court mandated seamless coordination between Union and State authorities to uphold the fundamental right to carry on trade and occupation under the Constitution.
In a matter addressing the access rights of fishermen utilizing purse seine nets beyond state territorial waters, a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe adjudicated an interlocutory application arising out of writ proceedings challenging state-level fishing restrictions.
Key Takeaways
- Administrative Delay Barred: Holding back application processing indefinitely constitutes an unwritten, illegal prohibition on trade.
- Autonomous Jurisdictions Affirmed: Union authority in the EEZ and State regulation in territorial waters operate co-equally without conflict.
- Federal Cooperation Mandatory: Both tiers of government must actively facilitate procedural clearances for citizens exercising rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
- Designated Transit Channels Required: Coastal states must establish clear transit corridors enabling regulated vessels to pass freely into international and EEZ waters.
Court's Analysis and Framework
Examining the constitutional architecture dividing marine jurisdictions, the Supreme Court clarified that the regulation of fisheries beyond territorial waters falls under Entry 57 of List I within Parliament's domain, whereas territorial waters fall under Entry 21 of List II under State jurisdiction. Both powers remain co-equal and autonomous in their respective spheres.
The Court noted that for the effective implementation of maritime regulations, the authorities must strictly adhere to principles of cooperative federalism, as highlighted in Union of India And Anr. v. Mohit Minerals Private Ltd., State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony, and Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation And Others v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators' Association And Others ( "(1994) 5 SCC 28": 1994 CaseBase(SC) 1205).
Highlighting the unacceptable administrative backlog where 226 out of 257 access applications remained indefinitely pending with state authorities, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Not processing the applications in time, virtually amounts to imposing an unwritten ban, which is impermissible in law. The State of Tamil Nadu is directed to ensure effective, efficient and timely clearance of the applications as per the rules and regulations which govern the subject."
The Court has the following directions:
"(i) the rights and liabilities of the parties will now be governed as per the relevant laws, EEZ Rules, 2025 and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020’.
(ii) the State Government to frame necessary rules/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. These rules/regulations may be made after taking into account the final recommendations of the Expert Committee."
Ratio
Administrative failure or deliberate inaction by state regulatory bodies that delays statutory clearances beyond reasonable timelines amounts to an arbitrary and unwritten ban, infringing upon the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Background
The controversy originated from G.O. MS No. 40 issued in 2000 by the State of Tamil Nadu under Section 5(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, which imposed a ban on purse seine net fishing in territorial waters to protect juvenile fish stock. Subsequently, the State notified the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, where Rules 15 and 17 restricted vessel movements and gear usage.
Fishermen associations challenged the restrictions, contending that state authorities were improperly using these rules to obstruct vessels carrying purse seine nets from transiting through state territorial waters to reach the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which lies beyond 12 nautical miles. The Madras High Court dismissed the challenge on April 20, 2021, leading to a Special Leave Petition and connected writ petitions before the apex court.
To resolve the impasse, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to constitute an Expert Committee. Based on its recommendations, the Central Government 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. Under this central framework, registered vessels meeting safety, Vessel Tracking System (VTS), and Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 requirements can obtain Access Passes to fish in the EEZ.
Disposing of I.A. No. 190882/2024, the Supreme Court directed the State Government to frame transit channel rules under Rule 15 of the state rules and ensure speedy clearance of all pending access pass applications.
Case Details:
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8442 of 2021 with Writ Petition (C) No. 262 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 937
Case Title: Fisherman Care v. The Government of India Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Rep. by its Secretary and Ors.
Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 914
Breaking News
