Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Environmental LawSupreme Court of India

Fisherman Care v. Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 937Decided 2 Sept 2026
SLP(C) No.-008442 - 2021 (with Writ Petition (C) No. 262 of 2022 and connected matters)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

Tamil Nadu had banned "purse seine" fishing nets (a technique that can catch large volumes of fish, including juveniles) within its territorial waters since 2000, to conserve fish stock, and later tightened this through the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. Fishermen and fishing associations challenged this, arguing the State was also stopping them from even carrying purse seine nets through territorial waters while transiting to fish legally in the EEZ (the zone beyond 12 nautical miles, which falls under central/Union jurisdiction, not the State's). After the Madras High Court upheld the State ban, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which in 2022 directed the Union Government to set up an Expert Committee to study the issue and meanwhile allowed limited transit fishing under strict interim conditions (registered vessels only, tracking systems, restricted days/hours).

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held there is no real conflict between the Centre's power to regulate fishing in the EEZ (under Entry 57 of List I, exercised via the new EEZ Rules, 2025) and the State's power to regulate fishing within its territorial waters (under Entry 21 of List II, via the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules): these are two co-equal, autonomous legislative spheres that must operate together through "cooperative federalism." Following the Expert Committee's recommendations (that an outright ban on purse seine nets isn't justified but effective regulation is needed), the Union had already notified the EEZ Rules, 2025 creating an "Access Pass" system for vessels to transit through State waters into the EEZ. However, the Court found the on-ground implementation deeply flawed: of 257 access-pass applications, 226 were stuck pending verification by Tamil Nadu authorities, with only 6 passes actually issued, the lowest among all coastal States, which the Court said effectively amounted to an unwritten, unlawful ban. The Court directed Tamil Nadu to process applications efficiently and to frame rules designating a specific transit channel through its territorial waters for vessels headed to the EEZ, and disposed of the application on this basis.

Lesson Learnt

Even where a State validly regulates an activity within its own territorial waters, it cannot use administrative delay or non-processing of applications to effectively impose a ban on a citizen's constitutionally protected right to carry on a lawful occupation (Article 19(1)(g)) in an area, like the EEZ, that falls outside its regulatory authority; cooperative federalism requires both the Union and the State to actually implement their respective rules in good faith and in a timely manner.

Fisherman Care v. Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware