If you’ve ever wondered how a fishing net dispute could end up before the Supreme Court and involve constitutional law on federal power-sharing, this case has the answer. It’s a story about how a decades-old state fishing ban collided with the practical needs of fishermen wanting to work in international waters—and how the Court finally untangled the two.
Background
Tamil Nadu has, since 1983, regulated marine fishing within its territorial waters under the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act. In 2000, the state government banned purse seine net fishing altogether through a Government Order, and this ban was carried forward into the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. The stated purpose was conservation—purse seine nets are large encircling nets that can scoop up juvenile fish stock, threatening the long-term health of fisheries.
The trouble was that this ban didn’t just stop fishermen from using purse seine nets within Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters (which extend up to 12 nautical miles from the coast). The State was also using a provision in the 2020 Rules—Rule 17(7)—to stop fishermen from even carrying purse seine nets through territorial waters on their way out to fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends much further offshore. Fishermen who had no intention of using these nets near the coast were still blocked from transiting through State waters to reach the EEZ, because the State worried that vessels carrying such nets might covertly use them close to shore, where policing is difficult.
This dispute first went to the Madras High Court, which dismissed the challenge to the ban in 2021. That led to a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, and while it was pending, a separate Article 32 writ petition was filed seeking permission to fish beyond territorial waters. Along the way, the Supreme Court asked the Union Government to set up an Expert Committee to study purse seine net usage nationally, and in 2023 it passed an interim order allowing restricted EEZ fishing while a permanent regulatory framework was worked out.
Here’s how the case unfolded:
What the Court Had to Decide
At its core, this case asked: who actually has the authority to regulate fishing where, and does a State’s conservation-driven ban on a fishing method inside its territorial waters also let it block transit to the EEZ, which lies outside its jurisdiction?
The Constitution splits this authority cleanly, at least on paper. Under the Seventh Schedule, Entry 57 of List I gives the Union Government power over fishing in the EEZ and beyond territorial waters, while Entry 21 of List II gives States power over fisheries within their territorial waters. The Supreme Court described these as “co-equal and autonomous” domains—neither government can override the other’s turf, and the relationship between them is meant to work through cooperative federalism rather than conflict.
Practically, this meant the Tamil Nadu 2020 Rules governing territorial waters and the Union’s new EEZ regulations were never meant to be at war with each other—they were meant to operate side by side, each within its own zone.
The Court leaned heavily on the findings of the Expert Committee it had earlier directed be constituted. Both the Committee’s interim report (submitted in November 2022) and its final report (placed on record in May 2024) reached an important scientific conclusion: an outright ban on purse seine nets was not scientifically justified. What was actually needed was proper regulation—things like access plans, Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) to track where boats go, and catch reporting requirements—rather than a blanket prohibition.
This set the stage for the Union Government to notify the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, in November 2025. These Rules created an “Access Pass” system for EEZ fishing, filling the regulatory gap that had previously left fishermen stuck between a State ban and an unclear EEZ regime.
The Court’s Holding and the Relief Granted
The Supreme Court held that the EEZ Rules, 2025, and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, are two separate, non-conflicting legal regimes, each operating in its own constitutional lane—EEZ fishing under Entry 57 of List I, territorial water fishing under Entry 21 of List II. With a complete legal framework now in place for both zones, the Court disposed of the interlocutory application by directing that the rights of all parties be governed going forward by these two sets of Rules.
But the Court didn’t stop at a purely declaratory ruling. It flagged a serious problem: out of 257 Access Pass applications filed by fishermen, only 6 had been cleared by the State’s Verifying Authority. The Court did not mince words here, observing that failing to process applications in time effectively amounts to imposing an unwritten ban—something impermissible in law, since it undermines a properly notified regulatory framework through sheer administrative delay.
To fix the transit problem, the Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to frame regulations designating a specified transit channel under Rules 15(5) and (6), so that vessels carrying purse seine nets could pass from territorial waters into the EEZ without running afoul of the territorial ban. It also directed the State to expeditiously process the backlog of pending Access Pass applications.
Why This Case Matters
This judgment offers a practical roadmap for resolving jurisdictional friction between Union and State fishing regulations without either government losing its constitutional authority. Tamil Nadu keeps full control over conservation policy within its territorial waters, including its right to prohibit purse seine net use there. Fishermen, meanwhile, gain a clearer, rule-based path to reach the EEZ, supported by a dedicated transit channel and a functioning Access Pass system rather than being caught in an administrative limbo.
The Court’s pointed observation about the 6-out-of-257 approval rate is also a reminder that regulatory frameworks are only as good as their implementation—a State cannot use bureaucratic slowness to achieve, in practice, a ban it could not otherwise justify in law.
FAQ
What is a purse seine net, and why was it banned in Tamil Nadu?
A purse seine net is a large net used to encircle and capture entire schools of fish. Tamil Nadu banned its use within territorial waters in 2000 over concerns that it catches juvenile fish stock, threatening long-term fishery conservation.
Can fishermen now carry purse seine nets through Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters to fish in the EEZ?
The Supreme Court directed Tamil Nadu to designate a specified transit channel under Rules 15(5) and (6) of the 2020 Rules, allowing vessels to pass through territorial waters to reach the EEZ, while the State’s ban on using such nets within territorial waters remains intact.
What are the EEZ Rules, 2025, mentioned in this case?
These are the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, notified by the Union Government in November 2025, which introduced an “Access Pass” regime for regulating fishing activity in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
Why did the Supreme Court criticize the Tamil Nadu government in this order?
The Court noted that only 6 out of 257 Access Pass applications had been cleared by the State’s Verifying Authority, and held that such delay effectively amounted to an unwritten, impermissible ban on fishermen’s access to the EEZ.
This summary was drafted with AI assistance from the official Supreme Court judgment (read the original PDF here). It is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Please verify details against the original judgment before relying on this post.
Leave a Reply