Centre And State Told To Act Under Maritime And Environmental Laws | Kerala HC Orders Action After Fire Onboard MV WAN HAI 503
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji held that both the Central and State Governments are obligated to act under applicable statutes and conventions to address environmental harm caused by maritime incidents. The court directed the concerned authorities to initiate necessary civil and criminal actions against offending vessels and to respond to environmental threats without delay. The Bench also permitted amendments to the petition to incorporate facts regarding the fire on MV ‘WAN HAI 503’ and fixed a subsequent hearing date for further compliance.
The writ petition was filed in public interest by a former Member of Parliament, currently serving as Chairman of the Kerala Fishermen Coordination Committee. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to secure immediate relief for fishermen affected by maritime environmental incidents and to compel statutory bodies to undertake cleanup and remedial measures following maritime disasters. Initially, the case involved an incident concerning vessel MSC ELSA-3. However, following a subsequent fire aboard MV ‘WAN HAI 503’ on 9 June 2025, the petitioner requested to amend the petition to include this event, which the court permitted.
The explosion onboard MV ‘WAN HAI 503’ occurred approximately 65 nautical miles off the Indian coastline, near Kannur, at around 22:00 hours. The vessel, which was carrying 1,754 containers including flammable liquids, solids, corrosive substances, and hazardous chemicals, remained afloat but unmanned and adrift. The Indian Coast Guard, Navy, Directorate General of Shipping, and salvage personnel had initiated partial firefighting and containment operations by the time of hearing.
Details of the hazardous cargo included chemicals such as Methoxy-2-Propanol, Diacetone Alcohol, Methyl Methacrylate Monomer (both stabilized and unstabilized forms), Chloroanilines Liquid, Resin Solution, Trichlorobenzene, Tetraethylenepentamine, Hydrobromic Acid, Isopropyl Alcohol, Dicyclopentadiene, Ammonium Metavanadate, Ethyl Chloroformate, Phosphoric Acid Solution, Bipyridilium Pesticide, Naphthalene, Maleic Anhydride, Paraformaldehyde, and thinning agents. The petitioner argued that these substances posed a significant threat to marine ecology and fishing livelihoods, necessitating prompt state intervention.
As to the earlier incident involving MSC ELSA-3, the State Government informed the court that a Cargo Manifest had been published on the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority’s website and that an Expert Committee had been constituted to assess the ecological impact. An FIR had been registered on 11 June 2025 under Sections 282, 285, 286, 287, 288, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following a complaint by a local fisherman. Interim financial relief in the form of money and rice was provided to affected fishermen.
The petitioner further requested an FIR be registered under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, citing potential violations due to chemical spills and marine contamination. The State’s position was that under Section 19 of the Act, only complaints made by the Central Government were cognizable. However, the petitioner submitted that the Central Government had issued a notification empowering State authorities to act. The State undertook to verify this and proceed accordingly, or else seek necessary clarification from the Centre.
The Bench reviewed multiple statutes and international treaties relevant to the matter. Under Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, the High Court may adjudicate claims relating to environmental damage caused by vessels, including compensation and costs of restoration. Section 4(1)(v) of the same statute enables actions related to wreck recovery, and the court may order vessel arrest and sale to secure claims.
Further statutory bases included the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. Under Sections 6 and 7, the Union of India holds exclusive sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. The Government also holds the authority to preserve the marine environment and prevent pollution within these maritime areas.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, was invoked with reference to inquiries into ship casualties (Section 358), reporting mechanisms (Section 359), and civil liabilities for oil pollution damage (Part X-B). Part X-C refers to India’s obligations under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund regime, which holds importers and recipients of oil liable for contributions under Section 352T.
Corresponding rules include the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packed Form) Rules, 2010; Merchant Shipping (International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage) Rules, 2008; and Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage) Rules, 2008.
International conventions relevant to the proceedings are the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, and the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007. The court noted precedents from other jurisdictions where significant damages were awarded to coastal states for similar maritime incidents.
The Division Bench recorded: “The point we wish to emphasize is that there exist various legal instruments under which the State and Central Government can proceed to take action.” The court continued: “For example, the District Collector can institute an Admiralty Suit under Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and even seek necessary directions in respect of arrest of sister vessels, subject, of course, to the rights and contentions of the parties.”
On the relevance of statutory mandates, it was stated: “In the Exclusive Economic Zone, the Union has sovereign rights for exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the natural resources, both living and non-living. It also has the exclusive jurisdiction to preserve and protect the marine environment and to prevent and control marine pollution.”
The Bench also noted: “When various courses of action have been provided under the aforementioned statutes and international conventions, both the Central and the State Governments are expected to exercise those powers, any delay or failure to act may give rise to an argument by an offender in future that a precedent is being set.”
On criminal proceedings, it recorded: “An FIR has been lodged... under Sections 282, 285, 286, 287, 288, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.” Regarding the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the court noted: “The learned Advocate General submitted that under Section 19 of the Act of 1986, no Court shall take cognizance... except on a complaint made by the Central Government.” It was further recorded: “The State will examine this position and proceed; if not, the Central Government will examine this position in respect of the offences under the Act of 1986.”
The court permitted the petitioner to amend the writ petition to include facts pertaining to the MV ‘WAN HAI 503’ incident and to carry out corrections in the description of Respondent No.11. These amendments were to be effected before the next hearing date.
The Bench directed: “Post on 19 June 2025. Issue notice to the unrepresented Respondents, returnable on next date.”
It further directed: “We request Adv. Mr. Arjun Sreedhar to assist the court as an amicus curiae. Registry to supply papers to the learned Amicus.”
The court stated: “The response of the State and the Central Government on the aforesaid action taken / to be taken in respect of the various statutory provisions will be placed on record on the next date of hearing.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: V. Harish, C.R. Rekhesh Sharma, Rajan Vishnuraj
For the Respondents: O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India; T.V. Vinu, K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Advocate General; N. Manoj Kumar, State Attorney, Naveen, Standing Counsel, Vipin P. Varghese, Standing Counsel, Amicus Curiae: Arjun Sreedhar
Case Title : Mr. T.N. Prathapan v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: WP(PIL) No. 50 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji
[Read/Download order]
