India must repatriate seafarers abandoned on a tanker and arrange replacement crew, Odisha High Court rules

The petitioner, Master of the vessel MT Unity, and 22 crew members remained aboard at Paradip Port after the vessel was arrested in three admiralty suits between May and July 2026.

They alleged that the owner and charterer had abandoned the vessel, failed to pay wages and provide essential supplies, and made no arrangements for crew change or repatriation.

The vessel’s P&I insurer later arranged provisions and payment of outstanding wages, but the crew sought disembarkation and repatriation, together with replacement crew for the vessel.

The petitioner invoked Article 226, seeking assistance from the Union authorities and permission for the vessel to access a safe port location for sludge removal and accommodation.

The Court had earlier directed steps for sludge removal, subject to there being no legal impediment.

Whether the vessel and its crew could be treated as abandoned under the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, in light of the owner’s alleged failure to discharge its obligations and the vessel’s detention by court orders.

Whether the Union authorities were required to arrange the crew’s disembarkation and repatriation and provide replacement crew, with the expenses recoverable from the owner or its agents.

The Court applied Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(d)–(e) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, under which a vessel may be treated as abandoned where the owner fails to meet specified safety, pollution-prevention or seafarer-welfare obligations, or where a detained vessel’s obligations are not fulfilled.

Section 92, which requires the Central Government to arrange replacement crew when the shipowner fails to do so for an abandoned vessel.

Section 304, concerning vessels without nationality; and Section 311, empowering the Central Government to direct authorities to assist or take measures concerning abandoned vessels, with costs recoverable as provided by the Act.

The Court also relied on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, including Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2 on repatriation and abandonment, and Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and dignity of foreign nationals in India.

In support, it referred to Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.

The Court found that the owner had failed to pay wages and provide essential supplies, and that the vessel had remained detained under court orders without its obligations to the crew being met.

It therefore held that the circumstances fell within the abandonment provisions in Section 3(2)(d) and (e), and that the crew were abandoned seafarers.

Given the statutory framework, India’s obligations under the Convention, and the crew’s Article 21 interests, the Court rejected the contention that responsibility for repatriation and replacement rested only with the owner, contractual parties or maritime-claim plaintiffs.

It held that the Union authorities had to intervene, while the resulting expenses could be recovered from the owner or responsible agents as a maritime claim.

The expenses incurred were to be recovered from the owner or its liable agents.

Compliance was directed at the earliest, preferably within three weeks of receipt of the judgment.