NIYAMAVEDI v. Government of India & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 19309 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :** **--------------------------** **'NIYAMAVEDI', REPRESENTED BY JOJO A.V., ADVOCATE, XL/5344, 3RD FLOOR, EDASSERY BUILDING, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **------------------------------** **1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES, NEW DELHI 110 001.** **2. INDIAN COAST GUARD SELECTION BOARD NOIDA, A-1, SECTOR-24, OPPOSITE HCL TECHNOLOGIES, DIST GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, NOIDA, UP-201 301.** **3. PRINCIPAL OFFICER, MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT, (DEPARTMENT OF SHIPPING) PRATHISTHA BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 (INDIA).** **4. B.MEENAKUMARI, CHAIRPERSON, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (FISHERIES, ICAR, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **5. A.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MEMBER, THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ICAR), KOCHI-682 031.** **6. Y.S.YADAVA, MEMBER, DIRECTOR THE BAY OF BENGAL PROGRAMME (BOBP-IGO), CHENNAI, 600 018.** **.2/-** **..2..** **WP(C).No. 19309 of 2015 (S)** **------------------------------------------** ## **7. LEELA EDWIN,** - **MEMBER, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY (CIFT) (ICAR), KOCHI, 682 003.** **8. S.G.BHANDARE, MEMBER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (SHIPPING), DG SHIPPING, MUMBAI, 400 001.** **9. A.A.HEBBAR, MEMBER, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR (F & E) COAST GUARD, NEW DELHI-110 001.** ## **10. K.J.ANTONY,** - **MEMBER, JOINT DIRECTOR, THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MPEDA), KOCHI, 682 036.** ## **11. B.VISHNU BHAT,** - **MEMBER SECRETARY, FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DAIRYING & FISHERIES (DAHID & F), NEW DELHI-110 001.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. SRI.S.BIJU, CGC R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON 25-02-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **WP(C).No. 19309 of 2015 (S)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **------------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-01-2013 AND THE GUIDELINES PRESCRIBED PURSUANT TO THAT ORDER.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE.** **EXHIBIT P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND VOLUME OF THE REPORT.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ALONG WITH ORDER DATED 12TH NOVEMBER 2014.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 28TH NOVEMBER 2014.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIRALTY CHAR.** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MURARI COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 06-02-1996.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER R.I.ACT DATED 05.01.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED UNDER R.I.ACT DATED 04.03.2015.** **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE MARINE FISHING POLICY NOVEMBER 2014.** **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.02.2015 UNDER R.I.ACT.** **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05.01.2015.** **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.02.2015.** **EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.10.2015.** **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FROM THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT DATED 12.10.2015.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **-------------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.48 DATED 21.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.** **//TRUE COPY//** Msd. **P.A.TO JUDGE.** ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.19309 of 2015 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of February 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Shaffique,J** This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. The petitioner claims to be an environmental legal organisation. They have projected the plight of fishermen community on account of certain policy decisions taken by the Government of India. The substantial contention urged by the petitioner is in regard to the policy of Government permitting deep sea fishing. According to them, the issue was under consideration of the Government for quite a long time and various studies have been conducted by Government approved organisations and even with the assistance of Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. As far as India is concerned, there had been several complaints regarding deep sea fishing vessels conducting fishing operations near the shore waters and often within territorial waters causing damage to the resources as also the livelihood of small scale fishermen. A committee has been constituted by the Ministry of W.P.C.No.19309/2015 2 Food Processing Industry in February 1995 under the chairmanship of Sri.P.Murari. One of the tasks assigned to the Committee was to ascertain the necessity of fishing vessels under the new deep sea fishing policy. Ext.P6 is the report of the Committee which is submitted in February 1996 to review deep sea fishing, commonly known as Murari Committee Report, and on acceptance of the said recommendations, a new Deep Sea Fishing Policy, 1991 was brought into effect by which the attempt of foreign fishing vessels to exploit deep sea fishing was curtailed. 2. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the Export Import Policy of Government of India (EXIM) during 2000-2001, Government of India permitted import of fishing vessels through the Special Import Licence Rules and 11 companies imported 32 deep sea fishing vessels and started operation in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In fact, there were no guidelines for fishing in Indian EEZ. Accordingly, the first set of guidelines were issued on 01/11/2002. According to the petitioner, those guidelines were in accordance with the safety of the nation and protecting the interest of the traditional fishermen. Complaint of the petitioner is that the guidelines were amended from time to W.P.C.No.19309/2015 3 time in order to help the deep sea fishing vessels. 3. On 10/09/2007, the Inter Ministerial Empowered Committee held a meeting to consider the representation submitted by the deep sea fishing vessel operators. The matter was referred to a sub committee who submitted a report on 11/07/2008. They did not agree with the various issues raised by the vessel operators. Thereafter, an expert committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr.S.Ayyappan, who submitted a report to the Ministry of Agriculture in October 2008. It is further stated that, in July 2011, the Inter Ministerial Empowered Committee constituted a Sub Committee to streamline the procedure for grant of Letter Of Permission (LOP) to vessels. A report was submitted on 22/11/2011 and based on the recommendations, the Government issued public notice and guidelines on 18/01/2013, which is produced as Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, as against the earlier procedure, substantial changes have been accepted by the new guidelines. Petitioner further states that, on 01/08/2013, the Government constituted another Expert Committee for Comprehensive Review of Deep Sea Fishing Policy and Guidelines. The Committee submitted its W.P.C.No.19309/2015 4 report in August 2014. It was recommended that waters beyond 500 meters depth are not optimally exploited and therefore fleet size of 1178 deep sea fishing vessels can be considered. It is also stated that already 908 deep sea fishing vessels are operating and further 270 deep sea fishing vessels are to be deployed. According to the petitioner, if such further vessels are deployed, it would amount to marine exploitation as the existing operators themselves are not reporting the daily position of the vessels to the Coast Guard or to the Mercantile Marine Department for renewal of permit. Pursuant to the said report, it is stated that the 1[st] respondent issued new guidelines on 12/11/2014. It is stated that, in the new guidelines of 2014, several features of 2013 guidelines were omitted to benefit the LOP operators. It is also stated that the 1[st] respondent issued a public notice on 28/11/2014 calling upon Indian entrepreneurs who intend to do fishing in Indian EEZ to obtain LOP. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid action would affect the interest of traditional fishermen and the marine ecology. According to the petitioner, on account of subsequent policies and recommendations, the effect of Murari Committee Report has been given a complete go W.P.C.No.19309/2015 5 by. Therefore petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: _“i) Call for the records pertaining to Exhibit P-3 guidelines along with the order dated 12/12/2014 and Exhibit P-4 public notice dated 28/11/2014 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari;_ _ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1[st] respondent to repeal Exhibit P-2 and P-2(a) report and implement the recommendations of Exhibit P-6 Murari Committee Report._ _Iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1[st] respondent to desist from deploying 270 deep sea fishing vessels;_ _iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1[st] respondent to cancel letter of permission (LOP) and seize all the LOP deep sea fishing vessels for violating conditions of Exhibit P-1 guidelines;_ _v) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1[st] respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 4 to 11 for_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 6 _recommending to deploy 270 deep sea fishing vessels without any scientific or valid datas and for not reporting to the 1[st] respondent the violation of mandatory clauses in Exhibit P-1 guidelines by LOP vessels that threatens the security of the Nation and not recommending any actions against unscrupulous LOP operators as per Exhibit P-1 guidelines and kept silence to loot sea wealth;”_ 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1[st] respondent wherein it is stated that fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters come under Entry 57 of List 1, in Schedule 7 of the Constitution which falls within the domain of Union of India. Accordingly guidelines have been issued on 12/11/2014 for conducting fishing operation in the Indian EEZ which are binding on all deep sea fishing vessels operating in the zone. It is stated that in terms with the guidelines, a LOP in writing is required to be obtained from the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries for operating any fishing vessel in Indian EEZ. This, according to them, will not permit uncontrolled exploitation of sea resources and monopolization of fishery wealth by such operators. According to them, guidelines have to be issued for the effective W.P.C.No.19309/2015 7 consideration and management of marine resources and implementation of international norms. It is stated that deep sea fishing vessels which are being deployed are mostly targeting and catching oceanic tuna species like “Yellow fin Tuna” and “Big eye Tuna” in the deep sea which are not being captured by small scale fishermen. Since Tuna is a migratory and commercially important oceanic fish stock and it cannot be captured by traditional and small scale fishing boats, the idea is to harvest the unutilised stock of Tuna from the deep sea areas of the Indian EEZ for export purposes. This, according to them, will not deplete the stocks and livelihood of traditional fisherman. 5. It is stated that after the declaration of the EEZ in 1976, immense opportunities were available for exploration, exploitation and utilisation of marine living resources in the 2.02 million Sq.Km area. It was realised that most of the deep sea fishery resources were beyond the conventional fishing limits and therefore various policies were introduced by the Government of India from time to time permitting operation of industrial foreign vessels to fish in Indian EEZ. Subsequently, Murari Committee submitted its report in February 1996 wherein the Government W.P.C.No.19309/2015 8 made minor modifications and accepted 21 recommendations of the Committee,. Thereafter the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in its EXIM policy announced for the year 2000-2001, allowed import of deep sea fishing vessels through Special Import Licence and accordingly, 11 Indian companies imported 32 deep sea fishing vessels. They started fishing operations after registration with Mercantile Marine Department and foreign crew clearances from Ministry of Home Affairs. When the operations became rampant, the matter was taken up with the Coast Guard and other authorities and an attempt was made to stop operations. Later, the guidelines of 2002 were published, which made certain regulations in the fishing operations of all the 32 deep sea fishing vessels. The said guidelines were amended from time to time. However, it is denied that the amendments were made to help the owners of deep sea fishing vessels. The respondents also contended that as per the directions of the Cabinet Committee on economic affairs, an inter ministerial empowered committee on marine fisheries was constituted as per order dated 17/11/2004 and this Empowered Committee has since met 23 times by which several policy decisions were W.P.C.No.19309/2015 9 recommended from time to time. Review of the guidelines were made to enable the Government to issue broad guidelines in the matter relating to deep sea fishing vessels in the Indian EEZ. Respondents submit that the expert committee report clearly indicated that waters beyond 500 meter depth are not optimally exploited and there is considerable scope of expansion in the zone mainly for Tuna and Tuna-like species. It is stated that Ext.P3 guidelines issued on 12/11/2014 are merely simplified guidelines which were in place since 2002 and considerable changes have not been made to the said guidelines. Ext.P3 guidelines were issued only to simplify the procedures in order to encourage deep sea fishing operations in the Indian EEZ and for boosting production and exports. It is stated that the procedure in the guidelines have only been simplified and none of the mandatory requirements of the previous guidelines of 2013 were removed. In regard to engagement of foreign crew on board LOP holder deep sea fishing vessel, it is stated that, it is subject to security clearance granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs. They also denied the allegations made in that regard. Respondents also contend that EEZ is defined under the 1976 Act as an area W.P.C.No.19309/2015 10 beyond and adjacent to territorial waters and the limit of such zone is 200 nautical line from base line. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Kerala Swathanthara Malsya Thozhilali Federation and Others v. Kerala Trawlnet-boat Operators Association and Others** [1994 (5) SCC 28]. It is also stated that the overall length of the deep sea fishing vessels have been reduced to 15 metres from 20 metres in order to encourage smaller vessels to venture deep sea fishing and thereby reduce the indiscriminate and unsustainable fishing in near-shore waters. It is further stated that Ext.P3 guidelines permits any Indian citizen or Indian operator to obtain LOP and to venture for deep sea fishing operations in the Indian EEZ beyond 12 nautical miles. The respondents also supported their stand in increasing the number of vessels on the ground that the present level of exploitation of resources by the LOP operators is meager. It is also stated that sufficient measures are devised to ensure that the guidelines are being followed by the operators. It is stated that the Government had issued guidelines based on proper study by expert bodies which are controlled by persons who are experts in the field. W.P.C.No.19309/2015 11 6. Heard Sri.A.X.Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Biju, learned Central Government Standing Counsel. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present policy as evident from Ext.P3 creates an unfettered right on the deep sea fishing vessels to plunder the marine wealth thereby creating environmental hazards which will result in depriving the traditional fisherman of their right of livelihood. It is stated that without any restriction on the distance factor, deep sea fishing vessels are being permitted to operate within the Indian Economic zone where the depth is 500 meters or more. It is stated that there is no controlling mechanism to prevent deep sea fishing vessels from catching their hold which are intended for conventional fisherman who could not go beyond a particular limit. If this situation continues, there will be depletion of marine wealth which may affect the livelihood of large number of fishermen who purely depend upon the sea wealth for their livelihood. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in **State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony** [AIR 1994 SCC 721. That was a case in which a dispute had arisen between W.P.C.No.19309/2015 12 fishermen in the State of Kerala who use traditional fishing crafts like canoes, kattamarams etc and those who use mechanised crafts which are mechanically operated by using sophisticated nets. The issue was considered by the Supreme Court based on various data that was made available as also the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 by which attempt was made to regulate fishing by fishing vessels in the sea along the coast line of the State. After evaluating the relevant contentions of the parties, the Supreme Court formulated the questions in paragraph 11 as under and it was held at paragraphs 14 to 16 as under: _“11. Hence, as pointed out earlier, the only question which falls for consideration before us lies in a narrow compass, viz., whether the purse seine, ring seine, pelagic trawl and mid-water trawl users can be prohibited from fishing beyond 10 kms of the territorial waters since the High court itself has restricted the operation of the said prohibition up to 10 kms of the territorial waters._ _14. Admittedly the mechanised fishing with purse seine nets was for the first time introduced on the Kerala coast in 1979. The result was that the catch of the traditional crafts which was 1 1.3 tonnes per annum in 1969-71 declined to 5 tonnes in 198082. These figures are sufficiently telling to show the_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 13 _adverse effect of the mechanised nets like the purse seine on the traditional fishing crafts using traditional nets. If we also take into consideration the fact that, as has been stated earlier, the fisherman-population of the State has increased by about 20.8 per cent in the year 1981 and that the average production of 3.55 tonnes per annum per fisherman has declined to 1.55 tonnes per annum between 1969-71 and 198082 which has resulted in 98.5 per cent of the fisherman-population being pushed below the poverty line, the situation for the traditional fisherman is grim enough. As against the fishermen using traditional crafts and nets who constitute 89 per cent of the total fishermen households, those using mechanised crafts and nets constitute a negligible percentage of the fisherman-population. It is undisputed that they are, strictly speaking, not part of the fisherman-population but rich private entrepreneurs who have invested in fishing as a business. Fishing is not their source of livelihood unlike that of the traditional fishermanpopulation. In 1984 there were not more than 100 purse seine boats and they were monopolising the pelagic fish wealth to the detriment of the large mass of poor fishermen who, as stated earlier, constituted 89 per cent of the fisherman-population which stood at 6,32,967 in the year 1981. Comparing the fisherman-population and the places occupied by the inshore area the national average came to 37_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 14 _hectares per fisherman. The majority of the fishermen are from Kerala and the fishermen in Kerala get only 10 hectares in the inshore area. If the inshore area is further limited to 10 kms, the area available to each fisherman will be reduced to 4 hectares._ _Secondly, the total potential yield of oil sardine in the south-west coast is estimated as 1,90,000.00 tonnes and the total potential yield of mackerel is indicated as 80,000.00 tonnes per annum. The whole of the catches made by purse seine nets of these two varieties of fish constitutes 92.5 per cent of the total purse seine catches. The maximum sustainable yield of oil sardine in Kerala according to one estimate is 1,04,100 tonnes and of mackerel is 16,400 tonnes while according to another estimate, it is 94,600 tonnes and 47,300 tonnes respectively. During 1979 to 1983 the average annual production of oil sardine and mackerel worked out to 1,26,445 and 15,350 tonnes respectively. This shows that the oil sardine and mackerel resources available in the Kerala coast are limited and uncontrolled exploitation of the said resources can no longer be permitted. In fact, there is a potential danger of over-exploitation of pelagic fish resources leading to rapid depletion if mechanised nets like purse seine are allowed to fish within the 22 kms belt of the territorial waters (Ref : Fishery Resources of the Indian Economic Zone by P.C. George, B.T. Antony Raja and K.C. George). Mackerel_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 15 _and oil sardine stocks are concentrated in the 0 to 50m depth range. The distance to be travelled to reach the 50m depth contour falls generally beyond 22 km limit laid down under the Act and the Rules._ _PURSE seine is a sophisticated technology borrowed from the West where there is labour shortage and where capital intensive techniques are needed. That technology is ill-suited to Kerala where there is huge fisherman-population in the artisanal sector as shown above and where the productivity and income per capita is low with 98.5 per cent of the fishermen living below the poverty line._ _What is more, as stated above, the operation of fishing by mechanised nets like the purse seine is responsible for destroying the fish stock by killing juvenile fish and fish eggs and thus preventing their breeding. The mechanised nets are thus not only impoverishing the mass of poor fishermen by reducing their catch progressively but also by destroying the standing fish stock itself. There is also a danger of over-exploitation leading to complete extinction of the pelagic fish within the territorial waters._ _It is not also correct to say that the large-scale fishing by the mechanised nets has led to an increase in total production thus benefiting the consumers either by abundant supply of fish or by reduction in their price. As the reports show, given the standing stock and the present level of exploitation, the_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 16 _mechanised net fishing would not lead to any increase in production. On the other hand, as stated earlier, there is a real threat of depletion of the stocks. What is further, the reports also point out that in other countries such as USA, Norway, Great Britain and Japan steps have been taken to restrict fishing by sophisticated gears like the purse seine seine to avoid destruction and depletion of the pelagic fish wealth._ _The aforesaid data on record clearly show that the ban on fishing by mechanised nets like purse seines, ring seines, pelagic and mid-water trawls 317 is necessary firstly for protecting the source of livelihood of the already impoverished mass of fishermen in the State and also to save the pelagic fish wealth within the territorial waters from depletion and eventual total destruction._ _In addition to the above two factors, we have on record the report of the IGP which shows that several violent incidents had occurred on account of clashes between the users of mechanised crafts and those of the traditional crafts within the State territorial waters. The State government was, therefore, fully justified in acting on the said report and banning the fishing by the mechanised nets within the territorial waters on that ground as well._ _15. The contention on behalf of the respondentoperators of mechanised gears, firstly, that the purse_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 17 _seines which they are operating at present are not fit for offshore and deep sea fishing and hence they should be permitted to fish within the territorial waters, in the circumstances, has to be rejected. THE operators of purse seines are few and rich with enough resources at their command. They do not ordinarily form part of the fisherman-population proper. Fishing is not their traditional source of livelihood. They have entered the fishing "industry" only as late as in 1979 and as entrepreneurs to make profits. They obviously look upon fishing as a business and not as a means of livelihood. Assuming, therefore, that the boats which they are at present operating are not fit for offshore and deep-sea fishing, they can always replace or convert them for such use. Even with the present boats they can easily diversify their fishing methods to bottom trawling, trolling line, gill netting, pot fishing etc. which are not prohibited in the territorial waters. They can also engage in hook and line fishing and dory fishing for fish resources like shark, catfish, perches and anchoviella. With their financial resources they can also change over to sophisticated fishing crafts for offshore fishing for exploiting fish resources beyond the territorial waters._ _16. By monopolising the pelagic fish stock within and by indiscriminate fishing in the territorial waters they are today denying the vast masses of the poor fishermen their right to live in two different ways. The_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 18 _catch that should come to their share is cordoned off by the giant and closely meshed gears leaving negligible quantity for them. Secondly, the closely meshed nets kill indiscriminately the juvenile with the adult fish and their eggs as well. That is preventing breeding of the fish which is bound in course of time to lead to depletion and extinction of the fish stock. There is thus an imminent threat to the source of livelihood of the vast section of the society. The State is enjoined under Article 46 of the Constitution in particular to protect the poor fisherman-population. As against this, the respondent-operators are not prohibited from fishing within the territorial waters. They are only prohibited from using certain types of nets, viz., purse seines, ring seines, pelagic and midwater trawls. There is, therefore, no restriction on their fundamental right under Article 19(1(g) to carry on their occupation, trade or business. They cannot insist on carrying on their occupation in a 318 manner which is demonstrably harmful to others and in this case, threatens others with deprivation of their source of livelihood. Since, in the circumstances, the protection of the interests of the weaker S. of the society is warranted as enjoined upon by Article 46 of the Constitution and the protection is also in the interest of the general public, the restriction imposed by the impugned notifications on the use of the gears in question is a reasonable restriction within the_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 19 ## _meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution.”_ 7. To consider the above writ petition, it would be useful to refer to certain provisions of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. As per Section 3(2), the limit of the territorial waters is the line every point of which is at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate base line. Contiguous Zone of India is dealt with under Section 5 as an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial water and the limit of the contiguous area is the line every point of which is at a distance of 24 nautical miles from the nearest point of base line referred to in sub Section (2) of Section 3. Continental shelf is defined under Section 6(1) as comprising the sea belt and sub soil of the sub marine areas that extends beyond the limit of which territorial waters throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the base line referred to in sub Section (2) of Section 3. Exclusive Economic Zone is defined under Section 7(1) as an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters and the limit of such zone is 200 nautical miles from the base line. The Central Government W.P.C.No.19309/2015 20 has the exclusive sovereign rights in respect of EEZ for the purpose of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of natural resources of both living and non-living. Section 7(5) indicates that no person shall except under and in accordance with the terms of any agreement with the Central Government or of the licence or a letter of authority granted by the Central Government, explore or exploit any resources of the Exclusive Economic Zone. 8. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that it is well within the realm of jurisdiction of the Central Government to make policies, enact laws as far as the territorial waters of India are concerned including the Indian EEZ. As rightly contended, the Union of India has the power under Entry 57 to frame laws with respect to fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters. Territorial Waters is at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the base line. It is stated that the policy now framed by the Government as evident from Ext.P3, is with reference to the power conferred on the Government of India in Entry 57 of List 1. Under such circumstances, it has to be assumed that the guidelines have been framed with reference to W.P.C.No.19309/2015 21 fishing operations by deep sea fishing vessels beyond the territorial waters, that is beyond 12 nautical miles. In other words, the deep sea fishing vessels which are regulated in terms of Ext.P3 guidelines can conduct fishing operations only beyond the territorial waters and within Indian EEZ. 9. The main apprehension expressed by the petitioner is with reference to the large scale fishing operations that might be conducted by deep sea fishing vessels. According to the Central Government, deep sea fishing vessels are being promoted to conduct fishing operations up to a depth of 500 metres as the said area remain unexploited within the Indian EEZ. Petitioner does not have a case that traditional fisherman will be in a position to exploit the fishing wealth of the sea in such a depth. In such circumstances, if the deep sea fishing vessels do not enter the territorial waters and they confine their operations to an area beyond territorial waters and concentrate on fish wealth that appears in deep sea which remains unexploited, we do not think that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner has any basis. 10. It is settled law that the Court shall not normally interfere in policy decisions. In _**Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. v.**_ W.P.C.No.19309/2015 22 _**Union of India,**_ [(2015) 9 SCC 657] the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of judicial review in matters relating to policy of the Government. It is held as under: _“14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the executive as the policy making is the domain of the executive and the decision in question has passed the test of the judicial review.”_ Perusal of the counter affidavit filed in the matter clearly indicates and even it is an admitted fact that over a period of time, the Government was concerned about the exploitation of fish wealth and also the requirement to frame guidelines to ensure that the traditional fishermen and their livelihood should not be affected in W.P.C.No.19309/2015 23 any manner. Perusal of the reports including the Murari Committee Report clearly indicates that deep sea fishing vessels operation is required to be conducted for exploiting the fish wealth which was remaining unexploited for quite a long number of years and for augmenting export. According to the Central Government, the main reason for permitting deep sea fishing vessel operation is for catching Tuna, which is a migratory fish. Therefore, when expert bodies have conducted appropriate study and framed policy which was taken into consideration by the Government, we do not think that we will be justified in interfering with such policy decision. 11. We would only state that the Central Government shall ensure that the operators of deep sea fishing vessels shall conduct the fishing operations strictly in accordance with the guidelines, and for that, appropriate measures shall be taken and it shall also be ensured that proper accounting measures shall be implemented to ensure that the guidelines are strictly followed. It has also to be ensured that no type of deep sea fishing shall be conducted within the territorial waters. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation W.P.C.No.19309/2015 24 involved in the matter, we dismiss the writ petition, however making it clear that the Central Government shall make all necessary measures to ensure that Ext.P3 guidelines are followed by all deep sea fishing vessel operators. (sd/-) **(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE)** (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** True Copy PA to Judge jsr