Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Bombay at Goa Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes directed the Director of Fisheries, the Goa Coastal Police, and the Indian Coast Guard to strictly implement the ban on LED fishing, bull trawling, and pair trawling in Goa's territorial waters. The Court held that the Directorate of Fisheries and Coastal Police lacked adequate enforcement mechanisms to curb large-scale illegal fishing and observed that the use of DG sets onboard fishing vessels was directly connected to powering prohibited LED lighting systems.

The petitions were filed challenging the failure of State and Central authorities to enforce statutory bans on harmful fishing practices in Goa’s territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The petitioners sought directions for enforcement of two key orders—one by the Directorate of Fisheries, Goa dated 10.05.2016, and another by the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare dated 10.11.2017. These orders banned LED fishing, bull trawling, and pair trawling, citing ecological degradation and depletion of marine resources.

Also Read: Courts Are Not As Fragile As Flowers To Wither And Wilt | Supreme Court Declines Contempt Action Over Scandalous Remarks But Warns That Hate Speech Must Be Dealt With An Iron Hand

According to the pleadings, despite the bans, hundreds of vessels continued operating in violation. Petitioners alleged large-scale indifference and non-enforcement by authorities including the State of Goa, Coast Guard, Coastal Police, and Department of Fisheries. It was claimed that these vessels deployed LED lights and DG sets to engage in methods prohibited under the Goa Daman and Diu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 (Marine Act) and under Central Government directives.

Petitioners referred to multiple affidavits and reports indicating continued violations. A Government of Goa order under Section 4 of the Marine Act had prohibited use of LED lights and bull or pair trawling within a five-kilometre coastal zone. Similarly, the 2017 Central Government order banned these practices in the EEZ. Despite these, petitioners cited the use of submerged or surface-mounted LED lights powered by onboard DG sets.

The affidavits revealed the Department of Fisheries had issued fishing passes without enforcing adequate inspections. Inspection efforts were sporadic and limited to vessels under suspicion. The Department admitted having impounded only two vessels in the 2022 fishing season, with a fine of merely Rs.5,000/- imposed in each case.

The Coast Guard, in an affidavit dated 19.04.2021, submitted that while it identified vessels violating the ban, it lacked statutory authority to prosecute violators and only reported incidents to the Fisheries Department. A report filed on 30.09.2022 revealed that 17 vessels were found violating the ban. The Fisheries Department later informed that only 11 of those were based in Goa and had been referred for adjudication.

A key development involved the Goa Shipyard Ltd. (GSL) report of January 2024, based on inspections at Cutbona, Malim, Chapora, and Vasco jetties. The report documented that 85 out of 307 inspected vessels had DG sets onboard, but only one vessel had a refrigerated hold—ostensibly the primary legal reason to carry a DG set. The majority of vessels were found with high-power LED lights, and the report inferred that the DG sets were primarily intended to power them.

The GSL report, initially suppressed by the Directorate of Fisheries, was eventually placed on record following court directions and through a miscellaneous civil application filed by the Goa Foundation. The report concluded that conventional fishing vessels could operate without DG sets and noted the absence of mandatory navigational and communication equipment aboard the inspected vessels.

Further submissions included arguments from the Petitioners that under the Merchant Shipping (Distress and Safety Radio Communication) Rules, 1995, emergency equipment could be powered using 24V battery systems charged by alternators, rendering DG sets unnecessary for such purposes.

The State and Fisheries Department submitted that auxiliary engines used on vessels served other purposes including cooking, lighting, and winch operation, and denied selective enforcement. It was also submitted that an enforcement wing comprising 58 staff had been proposed and a tender floated to hire patrol vessels.

Respondent fishermen cooperatives supported the State, arguing that DG sets were required for auxiliary needs and were not banned by law. However, the Court noted the lack of supporting material and infrastructure within the Coastal Police and Fisheries Department to monitor or restrict banned fishing practices effectively.

The Court observed, "Though there is a law that prohibits a certain method of fishing, there is no proper enforcement mechanism in place and it appears from a reading of the affidavits of the various departments that there is no will to enforce the aforementioned two laws."

The Bench recorded, "The GSL report opines that the conventional fishing boats can be operated without a DG set and that in the case of the inspected boats, practically all boats had no refrigerated hold, where the fish catch is stored."

It was further stated, "We find that the report of the GSL Limited states otherwise... The DOF has also attempted to justify the requirement of a DG set on board every fishing vessel... This however is also clearly untrue, as opined by the GSL report."

The Court noted, "We also note that most of the vessels did not have a magnetic compass, distress alert transmitter or radio communication equipment on board. The reports also suggest that on the average, most vessels had 40 crew members and on none of the vessels was crew accommodation provided for."

Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court stated, "Article 21... extends to the right to a hygienic and healthy environment... over-fishing or fishing in a manner that is prohibited by law, would deplete the fish population, thereby destroying a food resource."

Quoting the precautionary principle, the Court held, "Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

With respect to the statutory framework, the Court remarked, "The primary responsibility of enforcing the ban... lies on the Coast Guard; Clause (e) of Sub-Section 2 of Sub-Section 14 mandates the Coast Guard to enforce the provisions of these enactments in the maritime zones."

On the Coast Guard’s affidavit denying prosecutorial power, the Court responded, "In terms of Section 14 of the Coast Guard Act, it is the Coast Guard that is required to use all the resources under its power to enforce the State and Central laws over the Maritime Zones."

The Court directed the Director of Fisheries and its Authorized Officers under the Marine Act to take all necessary measures to enforce the bans on LED fishing, bull trawling, and pair trawling. It stated that such enforcement must be done in coordination with the Goa Coastal Police and the Indian Coast Guard, using all powers available under the Marine Act and relevant notifications.

The Court directed that inspections must be conducted regularly at all six fishing jetties—both public and private—to detect any illegal equipment, including LED lights and DG sets. The Director of Fisheries and the Coastal Police must maintain records of inspections, and in cases of non-compliance, suspend or revoke the vessel’s registration and permits.

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Rule 50(4) Proviso | Voluntary Retirement Can Be Withdrawn Before Effective Date | Provision Held Arbitrary And Unfair

The Directorate of Fisheries and Goa Coastal Police were instructed to maintain a dedicated helpline and email to receive public complaints. The contact information must be widely publicised, and the line monitored 24/7 by a responsible officer to enable swift action against violators.

The Court directed the Indian Coast Guard to utilise its statutory powers under the Coast Guard Act and the 2019 Ministry of Defence Notification to visit, board, inspect, and detain vessels operating in contravention of the bans. The Coast Guard must coordinate with the Department of Fisheries to take follow-up action on seized vessels.

The Department of Fisheries was ordered to report within three months on the steps taken to strengthen the enforcement mechanism, including staffing and procurement of patrol vessels. The Court directed continuous compliance monitoring and stated that further directions may be issued based on the compliance report.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias with Mr. Shane Coutinho and Ms. Barbara Andrade, Advocates; Ms. Norma Alvares, Senior Advocate with Ms. Malisa Simoes and Mr. Om D’Costa, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Neehal Vernekar, Additional Government Advocate; Mr. Raviraj Chodankar, Central Government Standing Counsel; Mr. Shivan Desai with Ms. Maria Costa Viegas and Ms. Riya Amonkar, Advocates; Ms. P. Kakodkar, Advocate; Mr. Balkrishna Sardessai, Advocate

Case Title: Goa Foundation & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 403 of 2022 with P.I.L. Writ Petition No. 32 of 2022

Bench: Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes

[Read/Download order]