The Supreme Court’s September 2026 ruling resolves a long-running purse seine fishing dispute between Union and State regulatory powers.
About the Case
Fisherman Care v. Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries concerns a long-running dispute over purse seine fishing in Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The dispute began with Tamil Nadu’s decision in 2000 to prohibit pair trawling and purse seine net fishing within its territorial waters, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the coast.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court after fishermen challenged the State’s restrictions and argued that Tamil Nadu could not prevent them from carrying purse seine nets through its territorial waters when they intended to fish beyond the 12-nautical-mile limit in the EEZ. The Supreme Court’s judgment of 2 September 2026 examined the relationship between the Union’s power over the EEZ and Tamil Nadu’s regulatory authority over its territorial waters, while also addressing the implementation of the national Access Pass system.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to an order of the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department dated 25 March 2000. The order banned pair trawling and purse seine net fishing within the State’s territorial waters, covering the area up to 12 nautical miles, or approximately 22 kilometres, from the coast. The restriction was imposed on the stated ground of fishery conservation.
The first major legal challenge to the ban was dismissed by the Madras High Court on 5 February 2019. Tamil Nadu subsequently notified the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. Rule 17(7) of these Rules prohibits any vessel from engaging in pair trawling or purse seine fishing anywhere in the State’s coastal area. Rule 15, meanwhile, regulates the movement of vessels through specified channels up to the relevant 5 and 12 nautical-mile limits.
A second challenge was also rejected by the Madras High Court on 20/21 April 2021. This challenge relied on the findings of an Expert Committee, but the State’s regulatory position continued.
The central difficulty arose because fishermen sought to travel through Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters with purse seine nets to reach fishing grounds in the EEZ beyond 12 nautical miles. The fishermen argued that Tamil Nadu had no jurisdiction to prevent such transit because their intended fishing activity would take place outside the State’s territorial waters. Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, maintained that merely carrying the purse seine nets would violate Rule 17(7), and that allowing vessels to pass with the nets would also create difficulties in enforcing the restriction once the vessels were at sea.
The proceedings eventually reached the Supreme Court in Fisherman Care v. Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, SLP(C) No. 8442/2021, Diary No. 11669/2021, along with connected writ petitions.
Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court became involved in the dispute as the competing regulatory positions of the Union and Tamil Nadu raised questions about how marine fishing powers should operate across territorial waters and the EEZ.
On 24 August 2022, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the use of purse seine nets by fishermen across maritime States and Union Territories. The Committee subsequently submitted an interim report on 15 November 2022. It found no justification for a blanket prohibition and recommended regulation of purse seine fishing instead of an outright ban.
On 24 January 2023, the Supreme Court passed an interim order permitting purse seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters but within the EEZ, subject to specified conditions. Only registered vessels could undertake such fishing, a Vessel Tracking System was mandatory, and fishing was restricted to Mondays and Thursdays between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
The Expert Committee later submitted its final report, which was placed before the Court on 31 May 2024. Among its recommendations was that Tamil Nadu should issue special annual permits allowing the innocent passage of vessels through its territorial waters so that they could reach the EEZ.
A further development came on 4 November 2025, when the Union Government notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025 under Section 7(1) of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The Rules introduced an Access Pass system for access to the EEZ. The system provided for a Central fisheries officer as the Issuing Authority and a State official as the Verifying Officer, with applications processed through the ReALCRaft portal.
The Access Pass system was launched nationally on 20 February 2026 for all 13 coastal States and Union Territories.
The implementation of this system became important to the final proceedings. As of 3 August 2026, 257 Access Pass applications had been filed on the ReALCRaft Portal. Around 226 applications remained pending verification by the Tamil Nadu Government, while only six passes had been issued. This was the lowest number among the coastal States.
The Supreme Court considered this delay in the context of the fishermen’s ability to access the regulatory system and exercise their fishing activity in the EEZ.
Legal Issues Involved
The dispute principally concerned the respective regulatory powers of the Union and Tamil Nadu over marine fishing in different maritime zones.
The Court considered whether there was a conflict between the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, which operate in the EEZ under the Union’s domain, and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, which regulate activities within the State’s territorial waters.
The Court also addressed whether Tamil Nadu could effectively prevent fishermen from reaching the EEZ by restricting their passage through territorial waters, particularly where the fishermen were otherwise seeking to undertake fishing activity in an area falling within the Union’s regulatory sphere.
Another important issue concerned the implementation of the Access Pass regime and whether administrative inaction in processing applications could effectively restrict the fishermen’s ability to carry on their occupation protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Judgment / Outcome
On 2 September 2026, a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment in the matter, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 888.
The Supreme Court held that there was no conflict between the two regulatory regimes. The EEZ Rules, 2025 govern the Exclusive Economic Zone, which falls within the Union’s domain under Entry 57 of List I. The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 govern territorial waters, which fall within the State’s domain under Entry 21 of List II.
The Court treated these powers as “co-equal and autonomous” within their respective spheres. In other words, the existence of Union authority over the EEZ did not eliminate Tamil Nadu’s authority over its territorial waters, just as Tamil Nadu’s regulatory authority over territorial waters could not be treated as extending into the Union’s domain over the EEZ.
The Court emphasised that the two regulatory frameworks therefore had to operate together rather than being treated as competing or contradictory regimes.
A significant part of the judgment concerned the pending Access Pass applications. The Court described the situation as “rather disturbing”, noting that a large number of applications remained pending verification by the Tamil Nadu Government while only six passes had been issued as of 3 August 2026.
The Court held that failure to process applications within time could “virtually” amount to imposing an unwritten ban. Such an outcome, according to the Court, was impermissible in law. A restriction did not become legally acceptable merely because it operated through administrative inaction rather than through an express prohibition.
The Court also relied on the principle of cooperative federalism in directing the Union and Tamil Nadu to implement their respective regulatory regimes effectively. Both authorities were required to work within their respective spheres while ensuring that the regulatory framework did not unnecessarily prevent stakeholders from accessing their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable regulation.
The Court further directed Tamil Nadu to frame rules designating a specified channel under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. The channel is intended to facilitate the transit of vessels from territorial waters to the EEZ, with the Expert Committee’s final recommendations to be taken into account.
Significance / Impact
The judgment brings a dispute that began with the 2000 fishing restrictions to a significant legal conclusion in 2026. More than two decades after the original ban, the Supreme Court has clarified how the regulatory powers of the Union and a coastal State operate when fishing activity involves movement across different maritime zones.
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is its treatment of territorial waters and the EEZ as separate regulatory spheres. Tamil Nadu retains authority over fishing activity within its territorial waters, while the Union exercises its authority over the EEZ. The judgment does not treat one power as automatically overriding the other. Instead, it requires the two regulatory frameworks to function together.
The decision also gives practical meaning to cooperative federalism in the context of marine regulation. The Court’s approach requires the Union and State authorities to coordinate their respective powers rather than allowing administrative procedures to make the exercise of a lawful activity practically impossible.
The ruling is also significant for Article 19(1)(g). The Court’s observation that prolonged failure to process Access Pass applications could amount to an unwritten ban shows that a fundamental-right restriction can arise through administrative inaction as well as through an express rule or order.
Finally, the direction to designate a specific transit channel provides a practical mechanism for vessels to move through territorial waters and reach the EEZ. The judgment therefore addresses not only the division of constitutional and statutory powers, but also the administrative process required to make those powers workable in practice.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reins In BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s Powers
