LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Fisherman Care vs The Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 82Decided 24 Jan 2023
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8442 of 2021
A.S. Bopanna · Sudhanshu Dhulia

Background

Tamil Nadu banned purse seine fishing nets within its territorial waters (12 nautical miles) in 2000, and the ban was reproduced in Rule 17(7) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. The Madras High Court upheld the ban and in April 2021 dismissed a fresh petition by the Fisherman Care association, describing the petitioners as "a class of affluent fishermen". The association came to the Supreme Court and, along with other petitioners, also sought permission to fish with purse seine nets beyond territorial waters, arguing that the State had no power there (only the Union does) and that the State was nonetheless preventing their vessels from passing through its waters. Tamil Nadu opposed, saying purse seining is a non-selective, ecologically harmful method used by rich operators that deprives traditional fishermen of their catch.

Decision Breakdown

The Court did not decide the validity of the State ban, which remains pending and remains in force. Noting that the Union of India has placed no restriction on purse seine fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone beyond territorial waters, and that the fishing season would end in February 2023, it passed a "restricted interim order" balancing all interests. Purse seine fishing was permitted beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters (but within the EEZ) subject to ten conditions: only currently registered vessels fitted with an approved Vessel Tracking System, operating only on Mondays and Thursdays, leaving after 8 AM and returning by 6 PM the same day, with crew carrying biometric IDs, VTS codes shared with the Fisheries Department, Marine Police, Coast Guard and Navy, colour-coded boats with prominent registration numbers, daily submission of tracking data, docking only at designated centres, and public display of permissions on the Department's website. Earlier 1994 decisions cited by the State were kept open for consideration after a Central Government committee reports.

Lesson Learnt

A State's power to regulate fishing stops at its territorial waters; what happens beyond that line is for the Union. Where an important question is still pending, the Court may craft a tightly conditioned interim arrangement that protects livelihoods while keeping the environmental issue fully open for final decision.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case