Fisherman Care v. The Government of India Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, 2026 INSC 937 (2 September 2026)
What the case was about
For more than two decades, Tamil Nadu has prohibited fishing with purse seine nets in its coastal waters to protect juvenile fish stocks. The prohibition, enforced under the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, and subsequent orders, applies strictly within the State’s 12-nautical-mile territorial waters. Beyond that boundary lies the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where fishing is governed by the Union government under a separate legal regime that does not impose an outright ban on this gear. Fishermen contended that Tamil Nadu was effectively landlocking them: the State not only barred the use of these nets in its own waters but also prevented vessels from carrying the equipment through those waters to reach the EEZ. They argued that the State’s failure to verify and process Access Pass applications under the central rules amounted to an unwritten blockade on their livelihood. Tamil Nadu, in turn, maintained that allowing vessels to transit with purse seine nets would make the local prohibition impossible to enforce, because boats could easily misuse the passage to fish inside the restricted zone (paras 2–5.1).
The key facts
The State enacted the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, under its constitutional authority to regulate fisheries within territorial waters (para 2). In 2000, it issued Government Order MS No. 40, flatly prohibiting the use of purse seine nets anywhere in those waters (para 3). Two decades later, the State framed the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, reinforcing the ban. Rule 17(7) of those Rules bars vessels from even carrying the gear within State waters, while Rules 15(5) and 15(6) provide for designated channels through which fishing vessels may move (para 4). After the Madras High Court upheld the State’s ban in April 2021, affected parties challenged the order before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of that petition, some fishermen filed a fresh writ petition under Article 32 seeking permission to use purse seine nets beyond territorial waters. The Supreme Court appointed an Expert Committee to examine the environmental and economic dimensions of the issue and later passed interim arrangements (paras 6–10). Eventually, the Union government framed the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, creating a formal Access Pass system for purse seine fishing in the EEZ. The process requires Tamil Nadu to verify and process applications, yet the State allowed them to languish unprocessed, leaving fishermen unable to lawfully reach their fishing grounds (paras 12–13, 16).
The questions before the Court
The Court framed three inter-linked questions. First, do fishermen using purse seine nets have a right to transit through Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters to reach the EEZ for lawful fishing, notwithstanding the State’s ban on such gear within its own waters? Second, do the Union’s EEZ Rules, 2025 conflict with the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, and the 2020 Rules? Third, does the State’s failure to verify and process Access Pass applications amount to an impermissible unwritten ban on purse seine fishing in the EEZ?
What the Court decided and why
A two-judge bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe resolved all three issues in favour of the fishermen, while carefully preserving the State’s regulatory powers over its own waters.
On the question of a conflict between central and State laws, the Court held that there is none. The Union’s EEZ Rules, 2025, and the State’s Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, operate in entirely distinct zones. The Union regulates fisheries beyond territorial waters under Entry 57 of List I of the Constitution, while the State regulates fishing within its territorial waters under Entry 21 of List II. The powers of both are “co-equal and autonomous in each of their legislative spheres” (para 14).
The Court emphasised that under the principle of cooperative federalism, both governments are “duty bearers” who must not only implement their own regulations but also ensure that stakeholders can pursue their fundamental right to practise any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject only to reasonable restrictions (para 15).
On the practical question of transit, the Court held that fishermen have no absolute right to fish inside Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters using purse seine nets. However, they cannot be blocked from reaching the EEZ. The Court directed the State to frame necessary rules designating specified channels for vessel transit through its territorial waters under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) of the 2020 Rules, taking into account the Expert Committee’s final recommendations (para 17). This creates a regulated corridor through which vessels may pass, but not fish.
Most significantly, the Court ruled that bureaucratic inertia cannot be weaponised to defeat the central regime. It held that the State’s failure to process Access Pass applications “virtually amounts to imposing an unwritten ban, which is impermissible in law,” and directed Tamil Nadu to ensure “effective, efficient and timely clearance” of applications as required by the governing rules (para 16). The Court made clear that the rights and liabilities of all parties would now be governed by the respective central and State regulations (para 17).
Why it matters
The judgment is an important check on the ability of coastal States to quietly nullify Union-level frameworks. By labelling administrative delay an “unwritten ban,” the Court signalled that States cannot frustrate central legislation through passive resistance or procedural inertia.
For fishing communities, the decision preserves a path to livelihood in the EEZ while accepting that Tamil Nadu may continue to police its own waters strictly. The directive to establish designated transit channels attempts to balance the State’s genuine enforcement concerns—namely, that boats might illegally drop their nets within the 12-nautical-mile limit—against the fishermen’s need to reach their lawful fishing grounds.
Finally, the ruling reaffirms a foundational principle of Indian federalism: the Union and the States each possess their own legislative sphere, but neither may erect concealed barriers that render the other’s lawful regime illusory. In an era of overlapping environmental and economic regulation, that clarity benefits not only fishermen, but anyone whose livelihood depends on moving lawfully across the boundary between State and Union domains.