Purse-seine fishermen’s EEZ access to be governed by Union rules; Tamil Nadu directed to clear permits and designate transit channels

The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, under which it regulated fishing within the State’s territorial waters. Exercising powers under Section 5 of the Act, Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. No. 40 dated 25 March 2000 prohibiting fishing by pair trawling and purse-seine nets throughout its territorial waters for conservation of fishery resources.

The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 subsequently prohibited purse-seine fishing in the entire coastal area of the State and regulated the movement of mechanised and deep-sea fishing vessels through specified channels.

The petitioners, who used purse-seine nets, did not seek permission to fish within Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters; they sought to transit through those waters to fish beyond 12 nautical miles, in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”). They challenged the State’s reliance on Rule 17(7) to prevent even the carriage of purse-seine nets for such transit.

During the proceedings, this Court permitted such fishing beyond the territorial waters subject to conditions including vessel registration, vessel-tracking systems, restricted operating days and hours, designated landing centres, and submission of tracking data.

An Expert Committee constituted by the Court recommended that purse-seine fishing should not be subjected to an outright ban but should be regulated through spatial, temporal and technical controls, monitoring systems and catch-reporting requirements.

Thereafter, the Union Government notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025 (“EEZ Rules, 2025”), providing for Access Passes to fish in the EEZ and a central regulatory framework.

The Court also noted that a substantial number of applications for Access Passes remained pending verification by Tamil Nadu, effectively creating an unwritten ban.

1. Whether the State of Tamil Nadu could, under the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983 and the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, regulate or prohibit the transit of purse-seine vessels through its territorial waters to fishing grounds in the EEZ.

2. Whether the EEZ Rules, 2025 and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 operated in conflict, or instead constituted distinct and co-existing regulatory regimes within their respective constitutional spheres.

3. Whether the Union and State authorities were required to process applications and facilitate access to EEZ fishing in accordance with the applicable rules, consistently with the petitioners’ rights under Article 19(1)(g).

The Court applied the constitutional allocation of legislative and executive powers under List I Entry 57, which assigns Parliament competence over matters relating to fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters, and List II Entry 21, which assigns the States competence over fisheries within their territorial waters.

The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, particularly Sections 3(k), 5 and 7, authorises regulation and licensing of fishing in the “specified area,” defined as areas along the State’s coastline but not beyond territorial waters.

The Court relied on Section 7(1) of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, under which the Union framed the EEZ Rules, 2025, including the Access Pass regime for fishing in the EEZ.

The Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 govern fishing and vessel movement within Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters, while the EEZ Rules, 2025 govern fishing beyond those waters.

The Court further applied the principle of cooperative federalism and held that regulatory authorities must facilitate the exercise of Article 19(1)(g) rights subject to reasonable regulation, relying on Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 700, State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony, (1994) 1 SCC 301, and Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association, (1994) 5 SCC 28.

The Court distinguished between fishing within Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters and fishing in the EEZ. Tamil Nadu was constitutionally competent to prohibit purse-seine fishing within its territorial waters under the 1983 Act and the 2020 Rules, whereas regulation of fishing in the EEZ fell within the Union’s domain under List I Entry 57 and the EEZ Rules, 2025.

Since the petitioners sought only to pass through Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters and fish beyond 12 nautical miles, the two regulatory regimes were not inconsistent; each applied within its own constitutional and territorial sphere.

At the same time, transit through territorial waters could legitimately be regulated to prevent vessels from secretly fishing within the prohibited zone.

Accordingly, the State was directed to designate channels under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) for such transit, taking into account the Expert Committee’s recommendations.

The Court also held that failure to process Access Pass applications promptly could amount to an impermissible unwritten ban and therefore required Tamil Nadu to ensure timely and efficient verification under the applicable rules.

The parties’ rights and liabilities were directed to be governed by these respective legal regimes.

Tamil Nadu was directed to frame necessary rules or regulations designating specified transit channels for vessels proceeding through its territorial waters to the EEZ, and to process Access Pass applications effectively and without undue delay.

The interlocutory application was accordingly disposed of.