Mandating on-board maritime training is valid if decoupled from onerous requirements for shipping company tie-ups.

The appellants represent maritime training institutes providing "pre-sea" courses.

In 2019, the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) issued a circular requiring institutes to admit students only if they had secured on-board training via a mandatory Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with shipping companies.

This was challenged in *WP.No.40370 of 2016*, where the High Court held that while DGS has the power to regulate, the requirement for a mandatory MoU and guaranteed placement was "onerous" and "unconstitutional".

Following that judgment, DGS issued new circulars on 24.04.2020 and 27.05.2020, which mandated institutes to arrange on-board training but removed the specific requirement for a prior MoU/placement tie-up.

The appellants challenged these new circulars, alleging they violated the earlier court order.

The Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, leading to these appeals.

The Court applied the principles of judicial discipline as discussed in *P. Suseela and others v. University Grants Commission* (2015) 8 SCC 129.

It relied on the regulatory authority of the Director General of Shipping under Entry 25, List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.

Furthermore, the court adhered to the standards set by the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, the Merchant Shipping (STCW) Rules 2014, and the Merchant Shipping Rules 2017.

The Court examined whether the new circulars repeated the "onerous" conditions struck down in the previous litigation.

It noted that the 2019 judgment specifically struck down the *compulsory tie-up* (MoU) and *guaranteed placement* as a prerequisite for admission.

However, the same judgment empowered the DGS to frame composite regulations to enhance training quality in line with the STCW Code.

The Court found that the impugned 2020 circulars did not demand a prior MoU with shipping companies but simply required institutes to facilitate on-board training as part of the curriculum.

The Court reasoned that difficulty in finding shipping companies for training does not render the regulation illegal.

By distinguishing between a "mandatory tie-up for admission" (invalid) and "arranging training as part of the course" (valid), the Court concluded there was no judicial indiscipline or violation of the previous order.

It directily answered that the removal of the mandatory MoU requirement cured the "onerous" nature of the previous regulation.

The Writ Appeals were dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2020 was upheld.

No costs were awarded.