Supreme Court Directs Centre to Sensitise Fishermen Over Katchatheevu Island Maritime Boundary

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Centre to sensitise Indian fishermen against crossing into Sri Lankan waters over the ceding of Katchatheevu island and the restriction of Indian fishing rights in the Indian Ocean. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 1974 Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime Agreement in A.K. Selvaraj v. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs Secretary.

Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing the petitioners, argued that the agreement violated constitutional procedure. Schedule I of the Constitution of India required amendment before the maritime agreement could be ratified, yet no such amendment was undertaken. Wilson also highlighted the human cost: repeated arrests and attacks on Indian fishermen who cross the demarcation line into Sri Lankan territorial waters.

The 1974 agreement ceded Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka as part of a broader maritime settlement. A subsequent 1976 agreement further restricted Indian fishing rights in waters that had historically been their livelihood zone. For decades, Tamil Nadu fishermen—often unaware of or unable to respect the exact maritime boundary—have faced detention by Sri Lankan authorities.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani presented the government's position. He submitted that fish stock depletion on the Indian side has driven fishermen to venture into Sri Lankan waters. Rather than challenge the maritime boundary itself, Venkataramani argued that the Tamil Nadu government should lead efforts to educate fishermen about the dangers and legal consequences of crossing into foreign waters.

Court adopts sensitisation as practical remedy

The bench acknowledged the Attorney General's submission and adopted it as a practical measure. The judges stated that fishermen need to be sensitised against crossing the maritime boundary. The court stopped short of declaring the 1974 or 1976 agreements unconstitutional or ordering their renegotiation. It framed the immediate problem as one of awareness and compliance rather than legal invalidity.

The sensitisation directive reflects judicial recognition that enforcement of maritime boundaries depends partly on the knowledge and voluntary compliance of those whose livelihoods depend on ocean access. Fishermen operating off Tamil Nadu often work in family groups or small crews, sometimes with minimal formal education and limited access to official information about maritime demarcation lines. The maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka, marked by coordinates and charts, is not visible on the water itself, making accidental or deliberate crossing a recurring reality.

The petitioners' constitutional argument rested on a technical reading of Schedule I of the Constitution, which governs the amendment procedure for certain classes of legislation and international agreements. Their contention was that ceding Indian territory to a foreign nation required a constitutional amendment rather than a simple executive agreement. The Supreme Court did not rule on this argument during the hearing, instead deferring further consideration.

The case touches on broader questions about the executive's power to enter into maritime agreements without explicit parliamentary ratification and whether such agreements, once made, can be unilaterally challenged decades later. The 1974 agreement has been in force for fifty years, during which time both nations have operated under its terms. Reopening the agreement would require bilateral negotiation and political will from both governments, factors beyond the court's direct control.

Repeated arrests of Indian fishermen have strained relations between the two nations and created hardship for fishing communities in Tamil Nadu. Sri Lankan authorities have detained hundreds of Indian fishermen over the decades, often seizing their boats and nets. Indian fishermen have also faced violence from Sri Lankan naval personnel in some incidents. These enforcement actions occur against a backdrop of economic desperation, as traditional fishing grounds shrink due to overfishing, climate change, and coastal development.

The court's emphasis on sensitisation acknowledges a practical reality: even if India were to successfully challenge the maritime agreement in court, the immediate problem facing fishermen would remain. Awareness campaigns, clearly marked boundaries, coordination between Tamil Nadu's fishing department and coast guard, and communication with fishermen's associations could reduce inadvertent crossings and lower the risk of confrontation at sea.

The bench listed the matter for February 2027, indicating that further hearings will examine the substantive constitutional challenge to the maritime agreements. The court will likely seek written submissions from both the petitioners and the government on the Schedule I amendment question and may eventually rule on whether the 1974 agreement violated constitutional procedure. However, the immediate relief sought by the petitioners—a declaration that the agreement is void or unenforceable—appears unlikely given the bench's pragmatic approach.

The government's response to the sensitisation directive will be closely watched by fishing communities and maritime law experts. Effective sensitisation would require coordination between multiple agencies: the Ministry of External Affairs, the Tamil Nadu government, the coast guard, the fisheries department, and local fishing associations. Public awareness campaigns, signage on fishing vessels, radio broadcasts in Tamil, and training programs at fishing harbours could all play a role.

The case reflects a broader tension in Indian constitutional law between the executive's treaty-making power and parliamentary or constitutional oversight. While the Constitution grants the President the power to enter into treaties, questions persist about whether certain agreements—particularly those affecting territory or sovereign rights—require additional procedural safeguards. The petitioners' argument that Schedule I amendment was necessary remains untested by the court.

Fishermen continue to face the daily reality of a maritime boundary that separates them from traditional fishing grounds. The Supreme Court's directive to sensitise them is a step toward reducing conflicts, but it does not address the underlying economic pressures that drive fishermen to take risks. As the case proceeds toward February 2027, the court's eventual judgment on the constitutional validity of the 1974 agreement could reshape India's relationship with Sri Lanka on maritime matters and set precedent for how India handles territorial agreements made in earlier decades.