EEZ Fishing Access Cannot Be Defeated by Administrative Inaction: States Must Facilitate Regulated Transit Through Territorial Waters

1. Introduction

The judgment addresses whether fishermen may carry purse-seine nets through Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters in order to fish in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”), where regulation falls within the Union’s constitutional domain.

Tamil Nadu had prohibited purse-seine fishing throughout its territorial waters under G.O. Ms. No. 40 dated 25 March 2000 and Rule 17(7) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. Fishermen complained that the prohibition was being applied not merely to fishing within those waters, but also to prevent them from transporting the nets through the territorial zone to fishing grounds beyond 12 nautical miles.

The central questions were:

• whether the State’s regulatory authority could obstruct access to an area governed by the Union;
• how the Union’s EEZ regime and Tamil Nadu’s territorial-water regime should operate together;
• whether prolonged non-processing of access applications amounted to an unlawful indirect prohibition; and
• what administrative mechanism should govern transit through Tamil Nadu’s waters.

2. Regulatory and Factual Background

2.1 Tamil Nadu’s prohibition

The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983 applies to a “specified area” along the State’s coastline but not beyond territorial waters. Section 5 authorizes the State to regulate or prohibit fishing within that area, while Section 7 requires vessels fishing there to obtain licences.

Acting under this legislation, Tamil Nadu prohibited pair trawling and purse-seine fishing in its territorial waters as a fish-conservation measure. Rule 17(7) of the 2020 Rules continued that prohibition. Rules 15(5) and 15(6), however, contemplated specified channels through which mechanised and deep-sea vessels could proceed to fishing grounds.

2.2 The fishermen’s grievance

The applicants accepted that purse-seine fishing could be prohibited within Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters. Their narrower contention was that the State could not prevent vessels from carrying the gear through those waters solely for fishing in the EEZ.

Tamil Nadu argued that vessels might misuse transit permission and deploy the nets within 12 nautical miles, where monitoring and enforcement were difficult.

2.3 Expert Committee and interim arrangement

The Supreme Court directed the Union to constitute an Expert Committee. Its interim report concluded that a blanket ban on purse-seine fishing was not justified, although strict spatial, temporal, technical and monitoring conditions were necessary.

On 24 January 2023, the Court provisionally permitted purse-seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters subject to conditions including registration, vessel tracking, restricted operating days and hours, crew identification, designated landing centres and disclosure of tracking data.

The Committee’s final report recommended annual transit permits, designated channels and harbours, compulsory vessel monitoring, catch reporting and a centrally administered national permit system.

2.4 The EEZ Rules, 2025

Following the Committee’s recommendations, the Union notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025. These Rules introduced:

• an “Access Pass” for fishing in the EEZ;
• a Central Government Issuing Authority;
• a State-level Verifying Officer designated in consultation with the State;
• vessel-monitoring and application databases;
• catch reporting and identification requirements;
• measures against juvenile and illegal fishing; and
• an eco-centric fisheries management plan.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that two distinct but compatible regulatory regimes govern the controversy:

1. Fishing in the EEZ is governed by the Union under Entry 57 of List I and the EEZ Rules, 2025.
2. Fishing within territorial waters is governed by Tamil Nadu under Entry 21 of List II and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020.

The Court found no conflict between the two sets of Rules because each operates within a separate constitutional field. Nevertheless, their administration must be coordinated. The Union and the State are required to act according to cooperative federalism so that lawful access to the EEZ is not frustrated.

The Court noted that, out of 257 applications for Access Passes, approximately 226 were awaiting verification by Tamil Nadu and only six passes had been issued. It held that failure to process applications in time effectively imposed an “unwritten ban,” which was impermissible.

The Court consequently directed that:

• the parties’ rights and liabilities would be governed by the EEZ Rules, 2025 and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020; and
• Tamil Nadu must frame rules or regulations designating a specified channel under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) for vessels transiting to the EEZ with purse-seine nets.

4. Analysis

4.1 Constitutional division of regulatory authority

The foundation of the judgment is the territorial allocation of legislative power. Tamil Nadu may regulate fisheries within territorial waters, but fishing and fisheries beyond those waters belong to the Union’s field.

The State’s purse-seine prohibition therefore remains applicable within its own territorial jurisdiction. At the same time, it cannot be administered in a manner that destroys access to a lawful activity regulated by the Union in the EEZ.

Importantly, the Court did not hold that Union power is hierarchically superior in all fisheries matters. It described Union and State powers as “co-equal and autonomous” within their respective legislative spheres. The case is therefore one of coordination between adjacent jurisdictions rather than repugnancy between competing laws.

4.2 Cooperative federalism as an operational obligation

Cooperative federalism was applied as a practical administrative duty. The Access Pass system itself requires interaction between a Central Issuing Authority and a State Verifying Officer. Neither level of government can make the statutory scheme work independently.

The judgment establishes that where regulatory functions are interdependent, constitutional autonomy cannot justify delay, obstruction or institutional non-cooperation. Each government must exercise its own power so that the other government’s lawful regime remains effective.

4.3 Administrative delay as an “unwritten ban”

The most significant finding is that prolonged failure to verify and process applications can amount to an unlawful prohibition even when no formal banning order has been issued.

A licensing authority cannot achieve through administrative inertia what it could not lawfully accomplish through legislation or a reasoned regulatory decision. By leaving 226 applications pending, the authorities had practically denied fishermen access to the EEZ. The Court therefore required effective, efficient and timely processing.

This principle is capable of applying beyond fisheries law: a statutory right or regulated economic activity cannot be nullified by indefinitely withholding permissions, verification or administrative clearance.

4.4 Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable regulation

Fishing as an occupation falls within the freedom to practise a profession or carry on an occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g). That freedom is not absolute. Conservation measures, licensing, vessel tracking, seasonal restrictions and catch-reporting requirements may constitute reasonable regulation.

The Court balanced occupational freedom against environmental protection. It did not recognize an unrestricted right to use purse-seine nets. Instead, it protected a right to pursue the occupation subject to the applicable statutory framework and scientifically supported restrictions.

4.5 Scientific regulation rather than an unqualified EEZ ban

The Expert Committee’s reports played an important role in shaping the regulatory response. The Committee did not find sufficient justification for a blanket prohibition throughout the EEZ, but identified genuine risks of overfishing, juvenile-fish capture and excessive fishing capacity.

The resulting approach combines access with monitoring: access passes, vessel tracking, catch declarations, fleet controls and eco-centric management. The judgment thus favours evidence-based regulation over either complete deregulation or indiscriminate prohibition.

4.6 The designated transit channel

The direction to create a specified channel reconciles the competing interests. Fishermen receive a legally recognized route to the EEZ, while Tamil Nadu retains the ability to monitor vessels and prevent unauthorized fishing within territorial waters.

The Court did not invalidate Tamil Nadu’s purse-seine ban. Nor did it hold that merely carrying the gear automatically authorizes its use in territorial waters. The designated channel separates lawful transit from prohibited fishing.

5. Precedents and Authorities Cited

5.1 Union of India And Anr. v. Mohit Minerals Private Ltd.

This decision was cited in support of cooperative federalism. It recognizes Indian federalism as involving constitutionally distributed powers and institutional dialogue between the Union and the States. In the present case, that principle was translated into a duty to coordinate the Access Pass process.

Its influence is visible in the Court’s refusal to treat one government as administratively subordinate to the other. Instead, each authority must perform its assigned role so that the combined regulatory system functions effectively.

5.2 State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony

This fisheries-related precedent was cited for the relationship between occupational freedom and lawful conservation regulation. It supports the proposition that fishing may be regulated in the public interest, particularly to conserve fish stocks and protect competing fishing communities.

The present judgment adopts the same balance: purse-seine operators may invoke Article 19(1)(g), but remain subject to reasonable, scientifically informed restrictions.

5.3 Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation And Others v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators' Association And Others

This precedent concerned competing interests within the fishing industry and the legitimacy of restrictions designed to protect fisheries and traditional fishing activity. Its relevance lies in the recognition that courts must balance economic rights with marine conservation and the interests of other fishing groups.

The Supreme Court followed that approach by neither granting unrestricted purse-seine access nor sustaining an administrative obstruction. It instead required regulated access supported by monitoring and environmental safeguards.

5.4 Constituent Assembly Debates

The Court quoted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s explanation that legislative and executive authority is divided between the Union and the States by the Constitution itself. This supported the conclusion that the two governments are co-equal within their allotted fields and that Tamil Nadu’s territorial jurisdiction does not extend to regulation of fishing in the EEZ.

6. Potential Impact

• Fisheries regulation: Coastal States must distinguish between fishing within territorial waters and the transit of vessels proceeding to Union-regulated waters.
• Licensing administration: Unexplained delay in processing statutory permissions may be challenged as an impermissible de facto ban.
• Federal governance: Where Union and State functions form parts of one regulatory process, both must coordinate rather than frustrate each other’s constitutional authority.
• Environmental law: The decision encourages scientific, data-based controls such as vessel monitoring, catch reporting and seasonal restrictions instead of unsupported blanket prohibitions.
• Occupational rights: Article 19(1)(g) protects meaningful access to a lawful occupation, but not exemption from conservation and licensing requirements.

The decision is narrow in one important respect: it does not create an unconditional right to purse-seine fishing and does not invalidate Tamil Nadu’s territorial-water prohibition. Its protection extends to regulated transit and lawful fishing in the EEZ under a valid Access Pass.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

Territorial waters

The sea area extending up to 12 nautical miles from the coast, within which the coastal State regulates fisheries.

Exclusive Economic Zone

The maritime zone beyond territorial waters in which India has sovereign rights over natural resources. Fishing there is regulated by the Union.

Purse-seine net

A large net placed around a school of fish and drawn closed at the bottom like a purse. It is efficient but may raise concerns about overfishing and juvenile catch.

Access Pass

A permission issued under the EEZ Rules, 2025 authorizing an eligible vessel to fish in the EEZ.

Cooperative federalism

The principle that the Union and States, though autonomous in their own fields, must cooperate when their functions are interconnected.

Unwritten or de facto ban

A practical prohibition created through delay or inaction even though no formal order expressly bans the activity.

Reasonable restriction

A lawful and proportionate limitation on a fundamental right imposed to protect interests such as conservation, public safety or orderly resource management.

8. Conclusion

The Supreme Court reconciled State fisheries conservation with Union control over EEZ fishing. Tamil Nadu may prohibit purse-seine fishing within its territorial waters, but it cannot use that authority—or administrative delay—to block regulated access to the EEZ.

The judgment’s central precedent is that constitutionally divided regulatory powers must be exercised cooperatively, and that failure to process statutory applications may amount to an impermissible unwritten ban. Designated transit channels, timely Access Pass verification and technology-based monitoring provide the lawful bridge between occupational freedom and sustainable fisheries management.