Introduction

The case of Fisherman Care v. The Government of India (2023 INSC 82) addresses the contentious issue of Purse Seine Fishing (PSF) within the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, Fisherman Care Association, challenged the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department's ban on PSF, arguing that it infringes upon their fishing rights both within and beyond territorial waters. The case escalated from the Madras High Court to the Supreme Court of India, highlighting the conflict between state regulations and fishermen's economic interests.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the Tamil Nadu Government's ban on PSF within its 12 nautical mile territorial waters. Recognizing the complexity of the issue, the Court issued a restricted interim order permitting PSF beyond territorial waters but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to stringent conditions. This decision aims to balance the economic needs of fishermen with environmental conservation and regulation enforcement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The petitioner referenced two Supreme Court decisions from 1994 (1994) 5 SCC 28), alleging that the Court had previously expressed unfavorable views on PSF. However, the Court maintained that these precedents remain open for reconsideration, especially in light of new developments and the Central Government's current stance on the matter.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's decision reflects a nuanced understanding of multiple factors:

• Economic Interests: A significant number of families depend on PSF for their livelihood. The Court acknowledged the financial investments made by fishermen in PSF technology and the potential losses they face if barred from employing this method.
• Ecological Concerns: PSF is criticized for its non-selective nature, which can harm marine biodiversity by capturing various fish species, including protected ones.
• Jurisdictional Boundaries: The Court considered the constitutional division of powers, noting that fishing beyond territorial waters falls under the Union of India's exclusive jurisdiction (Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule).
• Regulatory Enforcement: Concerns were raised about the State's ability to monitor and control PSF activities, especially regarding vessel tracking and compliance with stipulated conditions.

Balancing these aspects, the Court opted for an interim solution that permits PSF within the EEZ under strict regulatory oversight, thereby addressing both economic and environmental considerations.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in the regulation of fishing practices in India:

• State vs Union Jurisdiction: Reinforces the constitutional demarcation of fishing regulations, clarifying the boundaries of state and central authority.
• Regulatory Framework: Establishes a model for conditional permission, emphasizing the need for technological monitoring (Vessel Tracking Systems) and adherence to environmental safeguards.
• Fishing Communities: Provides a legal pathway for affluent fishermen to continue PSF activities, potentially impacting traditional fishermen reliant on more sustainable methods.
• Environmental Conservation: Highlights the judiciary's role in balancing economic activities with ecological preservation, possibly influencing future environmental regulations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Purse Seine Fishing (PSF): A fishing method that uses a large net to encircle schools of fish. It's considered non-selective because it can capture various species, including non-target and protected fish.
• Territorial Waters: A sea zone extending up to 12 nautical miles from a country's coastline, within which the state has sovereignty.
• Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coastline, where the state has exclusive rights to exploit marine resources.
• Vessel Tracking System (VTS): A technological system used to monitor the movement of fishing vessels to ensure compliance with regulations.
• Entry 57 of List I of the Seventh Schedule: Pertains to "Fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters," granting the Union of India exclusive legislative authority over this domain.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's interim order in Fisherman Care v. The Government of India represents a pivotal moment in Indian fisheries regulation. By permitting PSF within the EEZ under strict conditions, the Court strikes a delicate balance between supporting fishermen's economic livelihoods and addressing environmental and regulatory concerns. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in resolving complex socio-economic and ecological disputes, setting a framework that may guide future cases and policy formulations in the fisheries sector.