The Supreme Court has brought into sharper focus the constitutional principle of cooperative federalism while resolving a long-running dispute over the use of purse-seine nets by fishermen from Tamil Nadu seeking to access India’s Exclusive Economic Zone. A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, in Fisherman Care v. Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, has held that the Union and State regulatory regimes governing different maritime zones operate within their respective spheres and must be implemented in coordination rather than confrontation.
The judgment is significant because the dispute was not ultimately about whether purse-seine fishing should be permitted without restriction. It concerned a more nuanced constitutional question: where the State has power to regulate fishing within its territorial waters, can that power effectively prevent fishermen from reaching an area beyond those waters which falls within the Union’s regulatory domain? The Supreme Court’s answer was that the two jurisdictions must coexist. Tamil Nadu can regulate fishing within its territorial waters, but its regulatory framework cannot be administered in a manner that effectively obstructs access to the EEZ, where fishing is governed by the Union’s legal regime.
At the heart of the dispute lies the geographical and constitutional distinction between territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone. Territorial waters extend up to 12 nautical miles from the coastline, whereas India’s EEZ extends much farther offshore, up to 200 nautical miles, within which India exercises sovereign rights for purposes including exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of natural resources. The legal difficulty arose because vessels intending to fish in the Union-regulated EEZ necessarily have to pass through the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu before reaching those fishing grounds.
Purse-seine fishing involves the use of a large net to encircle a school of fish. The technique has been controversial because of concerns regarding depletion of fish stocks, juvenile fishing and competition between different categories of fishermen. Tamil Nadu had imposed a prohibition on purse-seine fishing within its territorial waters as far back as 2000, citing conservation of fishery resources. The prohibition was subsequently incorporated into the State’s regulatory framework through the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020.
The State’s regulatory position was founded upon the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983. The legislation was enacted under Entry 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, which places fisheries within the legislative domain of the States. Section 5 of the State Act empowers the Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit fishing activities within the specified area, while Section 7 deals with licensing of fishing vessels. The statutory scheme therefore gives Tamil Nadu substantial authority to control fishing activities within its territorial waters.
In 2000, exercising that authority, the State Government issued an order prohibiting pair trawling and purse-seine fishing throughout the coastal areas falling within Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters. The stated objective was conservation of fishery resources. The prohibition was subsequently reflected in Rule 17(7) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, which prevents owners or masters of fishing vessels from carrying on fishing by pair trawling or using purse-seine nets within the coastal area of the State.
The controversy arose when fishermen using purse-seine nets sought to travel through Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters in order to fish beyond the 12-nautical-mile limit in the EEZ. Their argument was essentially one of jurisdictional boundaries. They did not seek permission to use purse-seine nets for fishing within Tamil Nadu’s prohibited territorial waters. They sought access through those waters so that they could reach fishing grounds located outside the State’s regulatory jurisdiction.
Tamil Nadu took a different view. The State apprehended that allowing vessels carrying purse-seine nets to pass through its territorial waters would make enforcement of the prohibition practically difficult. A vessel could ostensibly claim that it was proceeding towards the EEZ while using the nets before crossing the 12-nautical-mile boundary. According to the State, therefore, a prohibition on fishing would be difficult to enforce if the mere transportation of the prohibited gear through territorial waters were permitted.
This conflict between regulatory control and practical enforcement eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Court had already intervened in the matter in 2022 and directed the Union Government to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the environmental and economic consequences of purse-seine fishing. The Committee was asked to consider the impact of the fishing method on fish populations, the grievances of stakeholders and the possibility of developing a national consensus regarding its regulation.
The Expert Committee’s interim report in November 2022 did not favour an absolute prohibition. It concluded that a blanket ban was not justified and that purse-seine fishing could be permitted subject to appropriate restrictions. At the same time, it recommended scientific management, regulation of fishing capacity, control over boat and gear specifications, catch reporting, minimum mesh-size requirements, monitoring systems and measures to prevent the capture of juvenile fish.
While the final regulatory framework was being developed, the Supreme Court in January 2023 created a carefully controlled interim arrangement. It permitted purse-seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters but within India’s EEZ, subject to stringent safeguards. Only registered vessels were to be permitted; vessel tracking systems were required; operations were restricted to specified days and timings; fishermen were required to carry identification; vessel registration numbers had to be displayed; tracking information had to be submitted to the authorities; and designated docking facilities were prescribed.
The interim order reflected the Court’s attempt to balance competing interests rather than treating the matter as a binary choice between prohibition and unrestricted fishing. Environmental conservation, the livelihood of traditional fishermen, the economic interests of purse-seine operators and the regulatory interests of the State all had to be considered simultaneously.
The Expert Committee subsequently submitted its final report in May 2024. Among other recommendations, it proposed that vessels intending to fish in the EEZ while passing through State-controlled territorial waters should be granted special annual permits for innocent passage. It also recommended designated landing centres, vessel monitoring systems, catch-reporting mechanisms and a centralised national permit framework for purse-seine fishing in the EEZ.
The Union Government thereafter introduced the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025 under the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The Rules created an “Access Pass” mechanism for vessels intending to fish in the EEZ. The framework introduced a Central Government officer as the issuing authority and a designated State officer as the verifying authority.
This regulatory development was central to the Supreme Court’s final analysis. The Court noted that there were now two identifiable and functioning regulatory regimes. The Union’s 2025 Rules govern fishing in the EEZ, while Tamil Nadu’s 2020 Rules govern fishing within its territorial waters. The Court found no inherent conflict between the two frameworks because each operates within a different constitutional and territorial sphere.
The constitutional foundation of this conclusion lies in the distribution of legislative powers. The Supreme Court observed that regulation of fisheries beyond territorial waters falls under Entry 57 of List I, giving Parliament legislative competence over that field and correspondingly vesting executive authority in the Union. Regulation of fisheries within territorial waters, by contrast, falls within Entry 21 of List II and consequently lies within the legislative and executive competence of the State.
The Court was careful not to describe one jurisdiction as superior to the other. Instead, it characterised the Union and State powers as “co-equal and autonomous” within their respective legislative spheres. This is an important formulation because Indian federalism is frequently discussed through the prism of Centre-State conflicts, whereas the Constitution in fact distributes authority through distinct fields of legislative competence.
The judgment draws strength from the constitutional understanding of federalism articulated during the framing of the Constitution. The Court referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s observation in the Constituent Assembly that the legislative and executive authority of the Union and States is partitioned by the Constitution itself. The constitutional allocation of powers is therefore not simply an administrative delegation from the Centre to the States. Each level of government derives authority directly from the constitutional scheme.
The Court consequently rejected an approach under which the State’s territorial jurisdiction could be used to frustrate the exercise of the Union’s jurisdiction beyond that territory. At the same time, it did not hold that fishermen possess an unrestricted entitlement to carry out purse-seine fishing within Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters. The State retains its authority to regulate and prohibit fishing within the area constitutionally assigned to it.
The distinction between fishing within territorial waters and transit through territorial waters to reach the EEZ is therefore central to the judgment. The State may prohibit the former; it cannot convert that prohibition into an indirect prohibition of fishing in an area that falls within the Union’s regulatory jurisdiction, provided the fisherman complies with the applicable central and State regulatory requirements.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning also draws upon its earlier decision in State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony, where the Court examined the respective powers of the Union and State in relation to marine fishing and recognised the distinct constitutional fields governing maritime regulation. The judgment also referred to Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association and the constitutional principle of federal allocation of legislative competence.
Another important precedent referred to by the Court was Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., where the Supreme Court discussed the constitutional importance of cooperative federalism. Although that case arose in a different regulatory context, its broader constitutional proposition—that the Union and States must work within their respective spheres while coordinating on matters involving overlapping practical consequences—was particularly relevant to the present dispute.
The Supreme Court’s invocation of cooperative federalism was not merely rhetorical. The Court applied the principle to a very practical administrative failure. Under the 2025 EEZ Rules, the Central Government’s designated officer is responsible for issuing Access Passes, while the State’s designated officer performs verification and physical inspection. The system therefore depends inherently upon cooperation between the two levels of government.
The Court examined the actual functioning of that mechanism and found the position troubling. As of August 3, 2026, 257 applications for Access Passes had been submitted through the Registration and Licensing of Fishing Craft portal. Approximately 226 remained pending for verification by Tamil Nadu, while only six Access Passes had been issued. The Court observed that the number of approvals was reportedly the lowest among the coastal States.
For the Bench, the problem was not simply administrative delay. When an entitlement created by a legal regime is made practically inaccessible because the authority responsible for processing applications does not act within a reasonable time, the effect can become equivalent to a prohibition without the State ever formally imposing one. The Court described this situation as an “unwritten ban” and held that such a result could not be permitted.
This observation has wider significance in administrative law. A statutory right or regulated activity can be frustrated not only through an express prohibition but also through bureaucratic inaction. The rule of law requires public authorities to act in accordance with the regulatory framework, and that obligation includes processing applications within a reasonable and meaningful timeframe. Administrative silence cannot become a substitute for legislative or regulatory prohibition.
The Court therefore directed Tamil Nadu to ensure effective, efficient and timely clearance of Access Pass applications in accordance with the applicable rules. The direction is important because the Court did not order the State to grant every application automatically. It required the State to perform the verification function assigned to it by the regulatory framework and to make decisions according to the prescribed criteria.
The judgment consequently preserves the State’s legitimate regulatory concerns. Tamil Nadu remains entitled to ensure that vessels entering its territorial waters comply with the conditions necessary to prevent prohibited fishing within the 12-nautical-mile zone. What the State cannot do is transform verification into a mechanism for indefinite obstruction of access to the EEZ.
The Court also directed Tamil Nadu to frame appropriate rules or regulations identifying a specified channel through which vessels can transit from its territorial waters towards the EEZ for purse-seine fishing. The direction draws upon Rules 15(5) and 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, which already contemplate specified channels for movement of mechanised and deep-sea fishing vessels.
This direction provides a practical solution to the enforcement concern raised by the State. Instead of imposing an effective prohibition upon vessels carrying purse-seine gear, Tamil Nadu can designate controlled routes through which such vessels must pass. Tracking technology and other conditions can then be used to ensure that the vessels do not deploy the prohibited gear while within territorial waters.
Such a mechanism is arguably more consistent with modern regulatory governance than an outright administrative blockage. Technological monitoring, vessel identification, designated routes, catch reporting and access permits can allow environmental restrictions within territorial waters to coexist with legitimate fishing activity beyond them.
The judgment is also significant from the perspective of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which protects the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business. The Court recognised that fishermen seeking to undertake fishing activity in the EEZ are pursuing a constitutionally protected economic activity, though that right remains subject to reasonable restrictions. The regulatory framework can therefore control how the activity is conducted, but restrictions must remain legally authorised and proportionate to the regulatory objective.
This does not mean that the Court has constitutionalised an unrestricted right to use purse-seine nets. Fishing is an activity with obvious ecological consequences, and the State and Union are entitled to impose conservation measures. The judgment instead insists that restrictions must correspond to the jurisdiction of the authority imposing them and must be implemented consistently with the governing legal framework.
The environmental dimension of the dispute remains particularly important. The Expert Committee did not endorse an unrestricted purse-seine regime. Its recommendations contemplated vessel monitoring, catch declarations, mesh-size restrictions, protection of juvenile fish, fishing-capacity controls and scientific assessment of fish stocks. The Supreme Court’s decision therefore cannot fairly be characterised as choosing commercial fishing interests over conservation.
Rather, the Court accepted that conservation and livelihood interests must be reconciled through regulation. A blanket ban may sometimes be justified by scientific evidence, but where expert assessment supports controlled use, the regulatory response should ordinarily be calibrated to the ecological risk. The judgment’s emphasis on scientific management reflects this more nuanced approach.
The case also reveals the difficulty of governing marine resources through rigid territorial categories. Fish do not observe constitutional boundaries. A fishing stock may move from territorial waters into the EEZ, while fishing communities traditionally operate across maritime zones. Regulatory fragmentation can therefore create practical difficulties even where constitutional jurisdiction is clearly divided. Cooperative federalism becomes essential precisely because ecological systems do not necessarily correspond with administrative boundaries.
From the standpoint of federalism, the Supreme Court’s decision is therefore more sophisticated than a simple allocation of power. It does not merely ask whether the Centre or the State has jurisdiction. It asks how two legitimate jurisdictions should function when their exercise necessarily intersects in the movement of persons and vessels. The answer is coordination rather than jurisdictional exclusivity.
The ruling also demonstrates why federalism cannot be reduced to a contest between competing sovereign authorities. In a constitutional federation, the Centre and States are expected to exercise their respective powers in a manner that enables the constitutional scheme to function as a whole. Where one government’s lawful regulatory mechanism depends upon an administrative act by another, cooperation becomes a constitutional necessity rather than a matter of governmental courtesy.
At the same time, the judgment provides an important warning against indirect regulation. If Tamil Nadu believes that purse-seine fishing within its territorial waters is environmentally harmful, it has the statutory power to prohibit that activity. But it cannot achieve the same practical result beyond its jurisdiction by preventing vessels from passing through its waters to reach the EEZ. Regulatory objectives must remain within constitutional boundaries.
The Supreme Court’s treatment of the Access Pass system further reinforces the principle of accountable administration. Once the Union and State Governments collectively establish a statutory procedure, neither can frustrate the system by failing to perform its assigned function. The Centre’s issuing authority and the State’s verifying authority must operate as parts of a single regulatory mechanism.
The decision also provides a constructive model for resolving Centre-State disputes involving shared or adjacent regulatory interests. Rather than invalidating one framework in favour of another, the Court has preserved both. Tamil Nadu’s 2020 regulatory regime remains applicable within territorial waters; the Union’s 2025 regime governs fishing in the EEZ. The practical gap between them is to be addressed through designated transit channels, verification, access passes and monitoring.
The Court’s directions consequently avoid unnecessary constitutional confrontation. There was no need to hold that Tamil Nadu’s entire fishing regulation regime was invalid, nor was there a need to declare the Union’s EEZ framework superior in every respect. The Court instead recognised the constitutional competence of both authorities and insisted that each operate within its own field.
This approach is particularly relevant in the context of India’s evolving understanding of cooperative federalism. Modern governance increasingly involves regulatory subjects that cannot be neatly compartmentalised. Environment, natural resources, taxation, public health, transport and maritime activity often involve overlapping consequences. Constitutional federalism must therefore operate not merely through allocation but also through coordination.
The purse-seine dispute demonstrates the consequences when that coordination breaks down. A Central Government system depended upon verification by a State authority, but hundreds of applications remained pending. The resulting practical effect was a restriction that neither the Union nor the State had expressly created through legislation. The Supreme Court’s intervention restores the regulatory process by requiring both authorities to perform their respective roles.
Ultimately, Fisherman Care is not a judgment that simply favours fishermen using purse-seine nets, nor is it a ruling that diminishes Tamil Nadu’s authority over its marine resources. It is a judgment about the constitutional discipline of governmental power. Tamil Nadu has the authority to regulate fisheries within its territorial waters. The Union has the authority to regulate fishing in the EEZ. Neither authority can use its legitimate jurisdiction as a means of frustrating the legitimate exercise of the other’s jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has therefore sought to transform a jurisdictional conflict into a regulatory partnership. The State may protect its coastal fisheries; the Union may regulate India’s EEZ; fishermen may pursue their occupation subject to reasonable restrictions; and environmental safeguards can be enforced through scientific monitoring and controlled access. What the Constitution does not permit is for administrative inaction to become an invisible prohibition.
The deeper significance of the ruling lies in its reaffirmation that cooperative federalism is not merely a constitutional ideal invoked in speeches it can operate as a practical principle governing day-to-day administration. Where two levels of government possess autonomous constitutional powers, the solution to regulatory overlap is not institutional obstruction but coordinated implementation. In the present case, the Supreme Court has used that principle to ensure that conservation, livelihood, federal autonomy and the rule of law are not treated as mutually exclusive objectives, but as interests capable of being accommodated within a carefully structured legal framework.
