Marine Disputes in India: Laws, Cases, and Legal Remedies Explained

In July 2025, the Kerala High Court made headlines by ordering the arrest of MSC Akiteta II, a Liberian-flagged cargo ship linked to a massive marine pollution incident. This followed the sinking of its sister vessel, MSC Elsa III, which capsized about 25 km southwest of Alappuzha, spilling over 600 containers of cargo—some carrying plastic pellets, diesel, and hazardous substances. In response, the Kerala government filed an admiralty suit under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, demanding ₹9,531 crore in compensation for environmental and economic damages. This case spotlighted India’s growing assertion of maritime legal rights and raised broader questions about how the country manages and resolves marine disputes—from boundary frictions to environmental compensation.

What are the marine disputes in India?

• Marine disputes in India refer to conflicts and legal claims arising in India’s maritime domain, including internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and continental shelf.
  • These disputes span legal, environmental, security, and economic domains.
  • Governed by a combination of domestic laws, international treaties like UNCLOS, and High Court admiralty jurisdiction.
• Types of marine disputes in India include:
  • Boundary and sovereignty disputes with neighboring countries.
    • Example: The unresolved Sir Creek dispute with Pakistan affects maritime boundary demarcation in the Arabian Sea.
    • The now-settled India-Bangladesh maritime boundary case (2014) was adjudicated under UNCLOS.
  • Fishermen conflict and arrests, particularly across overlapping or disputed fishing grounds.
    • Example:Palk Bay tensions between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka due to fishermen straying across maritime borders.
  • Environmental disputes due to shipwrecks, oil spills, and marine pollution.
    • Example: The MSC Elsa III incident in Kerala prompted a ₹9,531 crore admiralty claim for environmental degradation.
  • Commercial shipping disputes involving cargo loss, ship collisions, charter-party issues, or unpaid wages.
    • Example: Wage claims filed by foreign crew members in Indian ports under the Admiralty Act.
  • Port-related disputes, such as illegal anchoring, berth damage, or pollution near harbors.
    • Cases often handled by Port Trusts but can escalate into admiralty matters.
  • Security and jurisdictional issues involving foreign naval vessels or suspicious activities.
    • Example: The Enrica Lexie case involving Italian marines who shot Indian fishermen in 2012.
• These disputes can be civil, criminal, or administrative in nature, and are addressed via multiple legal channels:
  • Admiralty High Courts for maritime claims.
  • National Green Tribunal (NGT) for environmental damages.
  • International tribunals or arbitration for boundary disputes.
  • Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for diplomatic resolution.
  • Ministry of Defence and Coast Guard for enforcement and border security.

Why do marine disputes keep arising?

• India’s vast coastline and maritime footprint make it inherently prone to recurring marine disputes.
  • With a coastline of over 7,500 km, 12 major ports, and an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of over 2.3 million sq. km, the complexity of managing jurisdiction and enforcing laws is high.
  • India’s increasing dependence on seaborne trade (about 95% by volume) and offshore resources places immense economic value on its maritime zones.
• Unclear or contested maritime boundaries often lead to transgressions and disputes.
  • The Sir Creek area is disputed with Pakistan, affecting maritime boundary demarcation in the Arabian Sea.
  • Fishermen from Tamil Nadu are routinely arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy for allegedly crossing into Sri Lankan waters in the Palk Strait.
• Illegal fishing, smuggling, and poaching by foreign vessels within India’s EEZ also triggers jurisdictional and environmental disputes.
  • Example: Over 100 foreign fishing vessels, mostly from Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, are apprehended every year by Indian authorities.
• Pollution and marine accidents involving foreign ships in Indian waters raise issues of liability, clean-up costs, and environmental reparations.
  • Example: The MSC Elsa III sank off Kerala’s coast in 2025, spilling toxic cargo and leading to a compensation claim of over ₹9,500 crore.
• Jurisdictional complexity—overlapping authority between environmental, maritime, and defense agencies—can create procedural delays and legal confusion.
• Lack of uniform adherence to international conventions like UNCLOS, especially by neighboring states, weakens dispute predictability and enforcement.

Where are the disputes primarily located?

• Disputed maritime boundary zones with neighboring countries remain hotspots of friction:
  • Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar: Fishermen from Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka frequently clash over access to fishing grounds.
  • Sir Creek (Gujarat coast): Disagreement with Pakistan over the boundary origin leads to periodic arrests of Indian and Pakistani fishermen.
  • Bay of Bengal (Andaman Sea): Before the 2014 India-Bangladesh maritime boundary verdict, both navies patrolled overlapping areas.
• Busy shipping routes and port-adjacent zones are frequent sites of operational and environmental disputes:
  • The Kerala coastline, particularly near Vizhinjam Port and Kochi, sees heavy international shipping traffic.
    • Example: The MSC Akiteta II, arrested in 2025, was docked at Vizhinjam Port during legal proceedings.
  • Mumbai Port and Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNPT) handle dense vessel movements, leading to periodic disputes over anchorage damage or oil spills.
  • Chennai and Kamarajar Ports witness cargo disputes and ship detention cases under admiralty jurisdiction.
• Environmental and ecological zones like mangrove belts, coral reefs, and marine protected areas (MPAs) see conflicts related to damage by foreign ships, illegal trawling, or offshore infrastructure.
  • Example: Oil spills near the Sundarbans delta or Rameswaram coral ecosystems have triggered NGT petitions and admiralty claims.

When do marine disputes become critical?

• Disputes become critical when they result in significant economic, environmental, or diplomatic consequences, often escalating beyond local incidents into national or international issues.
  • Example: The sinking of MSC Elsa III on May 25, 2025, became critical due to:
    • Release of toxic cargo and diesel into Kerala’s waters.
    • Loss of livelihood for thousands of fishermen in Alappuzha, Kollam, and Ernakulam districts.
    • ₹9,531 crore compensation claim filed by the Kerala government, invoking national and international maritime law.
• Fishermen arrests escalate tensions when mass detentions or deaths occur.
  • Example: In 2021, the arrest of over 40 Indian fishermen by Sri Lanka caused parliamentary debates, protests in Tamil Nadu, and diplomatic engagement by MEA.
• Security-related incidents, especially involving foreign navies or unauthorized entry, create national security alerts.
  • Example: The Enrica Lexie incident in 2012, where two Indian fishermen were shot dead by Italian marines, sparked a legal and diplomatic standoff lasting over a decade.
• International tribunal rulings create flashpoints when they go against a party’s expectations.
  • Example: The 2014 Permanent Court of Arbitration verdict favoring Bangladesh in its maritime dispute with India saw initial resistance before peaceful implementation.
• Disasters with long-term ecological impact, like oil spills or toxic cargo leaks, push cases into emergency status.
  • Example: The 2011 M V Rak oil spill off Mumbai coast, which led to NGT ordering ₹100 crore compensation in 2016.

Who are the key stakeholders involved?

• Union Government authorities:
  • Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) – leads diplomatic negotiations in boundary disputes or when Indian nationals are detained abroad.
  • Ministry of Shipping and Ports – responsible for port governance and maritime infrastructure where disputes often arise.
  • Directorate General of Shipping – enforces shipping regulations, registers vessels, and ensures compliance with pollution control norms.
• State governments of coastal states, such as:
  • Kerala – filed admiralty suit in MSC Elsa III case.
  • Tamil Nadu – frequently negotiates for fishermen arrested in Sri Lanka.
  • Gujarat and West Bengal – manage sensitive border zones like Sir Creek and Sundarbans.
• Indian judiciary, especially:
  • High Courts with admiralty jurisdiction – such as Bombay, Madras, Kerala, Orissa, Telangana, and Gujarat.
  • Supreme Court – handles constitutional and appeals cases arising from maritime jurisdiction conflicts.
• Environmental authorities and legal bodies:
  • Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) – calculates compensation guidelines for ecological damage.
  • National Green Tribunal (NGT) – empowered to try marine environmental damage cases.
  • Environment Ministry (MoEFCC) – coordinates marine biodiversity protection and regulatory action.
• Security agencies:
  • Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guard – patrol EEZ, apprehend foreign vessels, respond to pollution, and enforce maritime law.
  • Coordinate with customs and marine police for on-ground actions.
• Shipping companies and insurers:
  • Example:Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) – subject of Kerala’s admiralty suit.
  • Ship owners, managers, and underwriters play a central role in negotiations, liability claims, and settlements.
• Fishing communities and NGOs:
  • Coastal fishermen associations regularly petition governments for compensation, legal aid, and diplomatic pressure.
  • Maritime legal NGOs assist victims of oil spills or unjust detentions with litigation support.

How are marine disputes addressed and resolved?

• Through legal mechanisms under Indian law:
  • Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 empowers High Courts in coastal states to adjudicate maritime claims.
    • Example: Kerala High Court’s arrest of MSC Akiteta II to secure a ₹9,531 crore claim for pollution caused by MSC Elsa III.
    • Allows actions in rem (against the vessel) and in personam (against the owner).
    • Covers claims like environmental damage, cargo loss, crew wages, collision, and ship mortgages.
  • Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 imposes civil liability on ship owners for oil pollution and requires mandatory insurance coverage.
  • Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 address pollution and ecological harm.
  • National Green Tribunal (NGT) hears environmental compensation claims, including marine disasters.
    • Example: NGT ordered ₹100 crore compensation in the M V Rak oil spill case (2016).
• By diplomatic engagement and treaties:
  • Bilateral mechanisms with Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh to handle fishermen arrests and maritime boundaries.
  • Joint Working Groups (JWGs) on fisheries and marine security help prevent escalation.
    • Example: India-Sri Lanka JWG aims to explore joint fishing zones and no-arrest policies.
• Through international arbitration or tribunals:
  • Example: The India-Bangladesh maritime boundary was peacefully resolved in 2014 by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under UNCLOS.
  • India adheres to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) framework for dispute resolution in EEZ and continental shelf matters.
• Via enforcement and security agencies:
  • Indian Navy and Coast Guard intercept foreign vessels, protect fishermen, and escort detained ships.
  • Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres (MRCCs) assist in incident reporting and resolution.

What is the significance of these disputes?

• Environmental protection and ecological balance:
  • India’s coastal ecosystems, coral reefs, mangroves, and marine biodiversity are vulnerable to unchecked shipping activities.
    • Example: The spill from MSC Elsa III raised long-term concerns for fish stocks and water quality along Kerala’s coast.
• Economic livelihoods and coastal communities:
  • Over 3 crore people depend on fisheries and related activities in India.
  • Disputes threaten income, employment, and cultural identity—especially in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, and Odisha.
• Legal empowerment and judicial assertiveness:
  • The 2017 Admiralty Act ensures that Indian High Courts can take swift action to secure claims, such as ship arrest, which strengthens domestic legal control over foreign violators.
  • Example: Kerala’s admiralty suit invoked both environmental law and maritime jurisdiction, showcasing legal convergence in safeguarding public interest.
• Strategic and national security considerations:
  • Peaceful maritime boundaries and strong enforcement boost India’s maritime sovereignty and deter encroachments by hostile actors.
• International reputation and law-abiding image:
  • India’s adherence to UNCLOS-based arbitration and its respect for tribunal verdicts (e.g., Bangladesh case) elevate its stature as a responsible maritime nation.

What are the limitations and gaps in resolution?

• Jurisdictional and procedural gaps:
  • Admiralty jurisdiction applies only within 12 nautical miles (territorial waters); incidents in the EEZ (up to 200 nm) often fall into grey zones without clear domestic recourse.
  • There is no specialized maritime bench or court despite the technical nature of disputes; general High Court benches may lack domain expertise in shipping, marine ecology, or international maritime law.
• Multiplicity of legal frameworks:
  • Maritime disputes are split across several acts—Admiralty Act, Merchant Shipping Act, Environment Protection Act, etc.—creating overlapping or contradictory procedures.
  • No unified Marine Disputes Authority to coordinate claims involving pollution, port infrastructure, and fishermen rights.
• Delayed compensation and enforcement:
  • Even after a ship is arrested, actual compensation often takes years.
    • Example: It took nearly 5 years for victims of the M V Rak oil spill to get NGT compensation.
• Weak deterrence for polluters:
  • International shipping companies may use flags of convenience, limiting India’s ability to enforce liability or serve summons on distant corporate owners.
• Lack of preventive legal action:
  • Laws are mostly reactive, dealing with damage after it occurs rather than proactively preventing marine risks through licensing or real-time monitoring.

What are the major challenges ahead?

• Tracking and intercepting violators in real time:
  • India’s coastal surveillance network, though improved, still lacks comprehensive coverage across 2.3 million sq. km of EEZ.
  • Many foreign trawlers, cargo ships, and offshore rigs operate undetected, leading to accidents and environmental breaches.
• Coordination among agencies:
  • Maritime law enforcement spans Ministry of Defence, Shipping, Environment, Fisheries, and MEA—often causing jurisdictional overlaps or delayed responses.
• Geopolitical tensions:
  • Disputes in zones near Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh can quickly escalate due to nationalism or local political pressure.
  • Influence of non-state actors (e.g., drug smugglers, pirates) adds another layer of risk to maritime security enforcement.
• Climate change and rising coastal hazards:
  • Sea level rise, coastal erosion, and extreme weather increase risks of shipwrecks, marine accidents, and disputes over marine resource depletion.
• Lack of compensation frameworks for fishermen:
  • No structured, rapid relief mechanism for Indian fishermen jailed abroad or for economic losses due to marine pollution.
  • Current systems rely on ex gratia payments or lengthy litigation, often inaccessible to vulnerable communities.

What is the way forward for India?

• Strengthen institutional capacity and legal infrastructure:
  • Set up dedicated maritime benches in High Courts or establish a National Maritime Tribunal for speedy resolution of admiralty and marine environmental cases.
  • Amend the Admiralty Act, 2017 to expand jurisdiction beyond 12 nautical miles, covering select cases in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
• Enhance coastal surveillance and enforcement:
  • Expand the Coastal Surveillance Network (CSN) and integrate AIS (Automatic Identification System), drones, and satellites to track vessels in real-time.
  • Empower the Indian Coast Guard with better legal authority for detaining polluters, illegal fishers, and rogue commercial vessels.
• Improve international legal cooperation:
  • Strengthen bilateral maritime treaties with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan to enable joint patrols, shared fisheries management, and automatic repatriation of arrested fishermen.
  • Ratify more IMO protocols and pursue regional marine pollution compensation agreements.
• Build environmental accountability mechanisms:
  • Create a dedicated Marine Environmental Damage Fund from levies on foreign vessels entering Indian ports, to quickly compensate affected communities.
  • Update CPCB compensation guidelines with dynamic costing for ecological restoration after marine pollution.
• Promote legal awareness among stakeholders:
  • Train port officials, fishermen unions, and local panchayats in basic admiralty and marine environmental law.
  • Digitize and publish previous marine dispute case laws for reference by civil society and judiciary.

Conclusion

India’s maritime disputes are evolving in both complexity and consequence, as demonstrated by the 2025 Kerala admiralty suit following the MSC Elsa III disaster. The Admiralty Act, 2017 has empowered Indian courts to act assertively against polluters and commercial violators. Yet, the surge in marine conflicts—over resources, boundaries, and environmental damage—calls for deeper reforms, better enforcement, and international cooperation. India must balance sovereignty, sustainability, and economic growth in its maritime space. A stronger legal and institutional framework, backed by science and diplomacy, will ensure that India’s seas remain both secure and justly governed.

Q. Examine the effectiveness of India’s legal framework in addressing marine environmental damage caused by foreign vessels, with reference to recent admiralty cases. (250 words)