Human Rights Protection Centre Tamil Nadurep v. Union of India & Ors.

36. The Secretary Department of Home Secretariat Chennai.7. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Department of Forests Chennai.8. The Director General of Police office of the Director General of Police Beach Road chennai.9. The District Collector Collectorate Ramanathapuram District.10. The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram District...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1to 5 to determine the coastal zone between India and Srilanka with buoysconsidering Katchatheevu as a natural territory and historic water ofIndia as per the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, ExclusiveEconomic Zone and other maritime Zones Act, 1976 in accordance with IndiaSrilanka Agreements. For petitioner ...Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For respondents...Mr.Wilson, Sr. Counsel for Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan ASGI for RR1 to 4Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan AG for Mr.K.Chellapandian, AAGassisted by Mr.B.PugalendhiSpecial Government Pleader for R5 to R10W.P.(MD) No.1820 of 2011V. Kannan...Petitioner Vs1. The Union of India The Department of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi.2. The Secretary to Government Home Department State of Tamil Nadu Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

43. The Union of India Department of External Affairs Government of India New Delhi...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondentsto provide protection to safeguard the life of Tamilian Fishermen fromSrilangan Navy vessels and directing the second respondent to provide Gunto each of the Tamilian Fisherman for their self defense. For petitioner ...Mr.S.Doraisamy For respondents...Mr.Wilson, Sr. Counsel for Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan ASGI for R.R.1 to 3.Mr.A.Navaneethkrishnan, AG forMr.K.ChellapandianAAGassisted by Mr.B.Pugalendhi,Spl.G.Pfor R.2.W.P.(MD) No.4190/2011B. Stalin...Petitioner Vs1. The Cabinet Secretary Union of India Cabinet Secretariat Rashtrapathi Bhavan New Delhi 110 001.2. The National Security Advisor Union of India Prime Minister's Secretariat New Delhi 110 001.3. The Defence Secretary Union of India 101 South Block New Delhi 110 001.4. The Deputy Director General Operations and Coastal Security Indian Coast Guard Ministry of Defence Govt of India Coast Guard Headquarters National Stadium Complex New Delhi 110 001.5. The Secretary Ministry of External Affairs Union of India South Block New Delhi 110 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

56. The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Tamil Nadu Chief Secretariat Chennai 2....RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondentsto provide naval ships, all along the Indo-Srilanka oceanic bordersseparating Indian and Lankan waters and further provide Air force coverto the Indian Tamil Fishermen between the International waters of Indiaand Srilanka and lastly provide coast guard personnel on the vessels,yatches, steamers and boats to accompany the Indian Tamil Fishermen whoventure out for fish mongering by considering the representation dated21/3/2011 to the respondents. For petitioner ...Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar For respondents... Mr.P.Wilson, Sr. Council for Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan ASGI for R.R.1 to 5. Mr.A.Navaneethkrishnan, AG for Mr.K.Chellapandian, AAG for R.6. Assisted by Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Spl.G.PWP(MD) No.1496 of 2012DR.M.H.JAWAHIRULLAH MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER Vs1 THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.3 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI.4 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI.5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OPERATIONS AND COASTAL SECRETARY COAST GUARD HEAD QUARTERS NATIONAL STADIUM COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 66 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to institute adispute against the Repulic of Sri Lanka in the International Court ofJustice for the the breach of its International responsibility towardsIndia for the killing and illegal detention of Indian Citizen (Fishermen)by the Naval Officials of the Republic of Sri Lanka and direct therespondents 1 to 6 to ensure the safety of Indian Fishermen in the Palkstrait and the Indian Territorial Waters and to pay compensation to theIndian Fisherman who are killed, injured or subjected to torture forviolation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitutionand the Human Rights and pass such further or other orders as thisHon’ble Court may deem fit.For Petitioner : Mr.R.GandhiFor Respondents : Mr.C.Ramachandran R1 to R3 & 5 Mr.A.Navaneethkrishnan, AG for Mr.K.Chellapandian, AAG for R.6. Assisted by Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Spl.G.P for R4 to R6C O M M O N O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by VINOD K.SHARMA,JThis Public Interest Litigation {W.P.(MD) No.4190 of 2011) hasbeen filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamusdirecting the respondents to provide naval ships, all along the Indo-Srilanka oceanic borders separating Indian and Lankan waters and furtherprovide Air force cover to the Indian Tamil Fishermen between theInternational waters of India and Srilanka and lastly provide coast guardpersonnel on the vessels, yatches, steamers and boats to accompany theIndian Tamil Fishermen who venture out for fish mongering by consideringthe representation dated 21/3/2011 to the respondents, whereas in otherwrit petitions, prayer is to provide arms to Tamil fishermen for self-defence.2. The petitioner is a practising lawyer of this Court. It ispleaded that there is frequently killings of Tamilnadu fishermen on andoff the coast of Palk Strait between the coastal borders of Tamil Naduand katcha Theevu/Valideep Islands prior and post ethnic crisis inSrilanka. The Official estimation of the murdered Rameshwaram fishermenis more than 500 even though the unofficial toll goes to more than 1000fishermen.3. The petitioner also submits that the injured and jailed TamilFishermen runs into several thousands as known to both the countriesbesides there are number of missing fishermen.4. It is submitted that there is a nexus between the Srilankannavy and the Somali pirates as per the intelligent reports forwarded bythe Research and Analysis Wing to the Prime Minister's Office on10/2/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

75. It is submitted that the transfer ceding agreement betweenIndia and then Ceylon (presently Srilanka) dated 23/7/1974 and PalkStrait agreement 1976 are the two pivotal bilateral agreements orinternational treaties deciding the International Maritime boundary linesand demarcations between India and Srilanka. The Katcha Theevu/ValideepIslands, Palk Strait, Gulf of Mannar on the Bay of Bengal are the areasof conflict between the Tamil Nadu Fishermen and the Srilankan Navy.6. It is submitted that the agreement goes against the interestof the Country since it amounts to surrender of Indian Territory in thisunholy and disgraceful act of statesmanship of unworthy of any State orGovernment. The agreement is anti national and unpatriotic and thebeneficiary of this agreement is Srilanka.7. The case of the petitioner is that Katcha Theevu/Valideepformed part of Ramnad Parliamentary Constituency and during 1974 thethen Srilankan Government moved their military, artillery and aerialforces towards the island, thousands of Indian boats were illegallyconfined and the sovereignity of the natin was put into jeopardy as earlyas 1974 itself. 8. It is submitted that records were produced showing thatoriginally Katcha Theevu/Valideep islands belongs to the Ramnad Zamindaryand post independence to the Union of India as Ramnad Parliamentaryconstituency.9. It is the case of the petitioner that that the cessation ofthe Indian Territory of Union of India is not permitted under theConstitution and it was not open to the Government for ceding even oneinch of Indian Territory to a Nation. On an earlier occasion, the cocoislands belonging to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands were ceded to Burma.10. In the year 1921, during the British Rule, the fishery linewas drawn 3 ½ miles west of Katcha Theevu/Valideep and the western sideof the fishery line exclusively belonging to Indian fishermen and thewest belonged to Srilankan fishermen. But in spite of this both thefishermen used to fish in west and east and dry the fishing nets in thekatcha Theevu/Valideep islands as there were no fresh water available inthe entire oceanic arena.11. It is the submission of the petitioner that it is inevitableand urgent for the Union of India to sue Srilanka before theInternational Court of Justice for compensating 980 dead fishermenbelonging to Tamil Nadu who have been murdered in the internationalwaters and also to retrieve the Katcha Theevu/Valideep unilaterally cededto Srilanka.12. The petitioner has pleaded certain precedents inInternational Inter Country matters taken before the International Courtof Justice. It is submitted that as per Clause 76 of the InternationalLaw of Seas 1982, the coastal states shall establish the outer edge ofthe continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical seamiles from the base lines from where the breadth of the territorial seais measured. Therefore, as per Clause 76 of the International Law ofSeas 1982 there has to be a redrawal of the territorial waters between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8India and Srilanka. The authorities committed by the Srilankan Navy onIndian fishermen more particularly, Tamilians was also deliberated bythe State of Tamil Nadu on 21/7/2008.13. That the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, exclusiveeconomic zone and other maritime zones Act, 1976 which fixed the limit ofterritorial waters as the line every point of which is at a distance of12 nautical sea miles from the nearest point of appropriate baseline.14. That this is being repeatedly transgressed violating boththe agreements and therefore, the recall of the agreement isnecessitated.15. Reliance is placed on Article 73 of the United Nations ofLaw of the sea prohibits, shooting of straying fishermen, the SrilankanNavy has been quite trigger/happy. But the respondents have taken noaction to prevent this.16. It is submitted that the documents and revenue recordspertaining to the Zamindary rights of raja of Ramnad have been taken awayto New Delhi and are protected under the stone walls of secrecy. 17. It is submitted that when the Zamindary was abolished afterthe independence, it came under the revenue jurisdiction of the MadrasPresidency and subsequently, Ramnad Parliamentary constituency.18. It is also the submission of the petitioner that Palk Straitlays between Tamil Nadu and Srilanka connecting the Bay of Bengal to theNorth east with the Gulf of Mannar to the South. The strait is 42 – 85miles (64 – 134 kilometers wide). This strait is named Robert Palk, whowas a Governor of the Madras Presidency between 1755 – 1763 during theBritish regime.19. That the Srilankan Government is free to delimit itsterritorial waters and it is bound by international laws.20. That Katcha Theevu/Valideep is 17 kilometers from the Indiantown of Rameswaram coming under the contiguous zone and even 12nautical sea miles is accepted as the territorial water from the coastKatcha Theevu/Valideep is under the Indian territory for centuries.Itbeing one of the 8 islands belonging to the Tamil kingdom of Ramnad. 21. That even today, the sea between India and Srilanka is knownas Sethu Samudhram meaning seas of the Sethupathy Raja. The East IndiaCompany obtained on lease the Katcha Theevu/Valideep from Raja Sethupathyin the year 1822, In 1880, one Abdul Khadar of Keelakarai Village gotlease for Katcha Theevu/Valideep and Mannali Theevu from the DistrictCollector, Ramnad under the Madras Presidency and in 1930 the Governmentof Madras Presidency got a lease of Katcha Theevu/Valideep from RajaSethupathy of the princely State of Ramnad and gave the fishing rights tothe Tamil Fishermen belonging to Madras Presidency.22. In 1947, one Mohammed took lease of Katcha Theevu/Valideepregistered in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Rameswaram (RegistrationNo.278/1948) and after Indian Independence Madras Presidency by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9G.O.No.2093 dated 11/8/1949 shows that the island belonged to BritishIndia subsequent to the princely State of Ramnad and lastly to the MadrasPresidency and present day Tamil Nadu.23. It is the case of the petitioner that Srilankan Governmentclandestinely sent its troops to the uninhabited island during 1955 fornaval training and in the year 1974, India conceded the territory toSrilanka through the aforesaid two agreements. While the IndianGovernment claim that fishing rights and the worship at St. Antony'sChurch built in 1939 vested with the Indian fishermen the SrilankanGovernment misinterpreted the same stating that the Indian fishermen haveonly rights to dry their nets in their island and no fishing rights.This is the reason for killing of the Indian fishermen.24. On 12/3/2011, INS Kalpeni and Indian Naval Ship intercepteda Somali pirate ship in the Arabian sea and saved 13 north Indians andarrested 61 Somali sea brigands and brought them to India for legalaction, for abduction and sea water crimes. The Indian Navy has sunktwo Somali ships on January 28 and February 5th 2011 in the Arabian seasand further arrested 43 pirates under the "Operation Island Watch".25. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Union ofIndia has decided to have a proactive approach by deploying latest navalartillery and missiles and ruling out any negotiations, in the on goingconflicts in the Arabian Sea.26. It is the case of the petitioner that adhering to theInternal Security of the Nation both the treaties have to be immediatelyand unilaterally scrapped to avoid the enemy Nation China which hascommenced infrastructural projects in Srilanka.27. It being a major shipping lane as the supplier Nation forcrude oil, raw, mineral and energy for China. It is pleaded that thoughthe Government of India helped the Srilanka to fight against theLiberation Tigers of Tamil Nadu but no response is forthcoming.28. It is also the submission of the petitioner that the actiontaken by the Union Government to protect North Indian students inAustralia and the action of the Indian Navy against Somalia in theArabian Sea on the abductions of north Indians is also commendable.29. It is submitted that huge amount of money has been spent andit is for the Government to provide salary to tamil fishermen as thekilling of innocent tamil fishermen is unabated.30. On the submissions made above, it is submitted that theUnion of India should provide naval ships, all along the Indo-Srilankaoceanic borders separating Indian and Lankan waters and further provideAir force cover to the Indian Tamil Fishermen between the Internationalwaters of India and Srilanka and lastly provide coast guard personnel onthe vessels, yatches, steamers and boats to accompany the Indian TamilFishermen who venture out for fish mongering by considering therepresentation dated 21/3/2011 to the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1031. The sixth respondent/Chief Secretary to Government of TamilNadu has filed the counter in line of the pleadings of the petitioner.In paragraph 13 of the counter, it is submitted that the petition hasbeen filed in the Supreme Court to reconsider 1974 and 1976 agreementsand restore Katchatheevu to India, which may result in liberty to thefishermen to conduct fishing in the traditional fishing grounds.32. It is submitted that the request of the Chief Minister ofTamil Nadu for restoration of traditional fishing rights of Indianfishermen is not implemented.33. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents 1 to 5 byraising a preliminary objection that the writ petitions are notmaintainable in law, as the relief sought in these writ petitions isbeyond the jurisdiction and purview of this Honourable Court.34. It is submitted that similar writ petition in W.P.No.27026of 2008 with identical prayer was dismissed by this Court on 11/3/2011.Again W.P.Nos.3421 and 3422 of 2011 were also dismissed by this Court. 35. That while dismissing W.P.No.27026 of 2008, this Court waspleased to hold as under:-"9. Be that as it may as held by this Court in WritPetition Nos.3421 and 3422 of 2011 dated 24/2/2011, the reliefsought for the present writ petitions cannot be granted as itinvolves bilateral relationship between the two neighbouringcountries and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution cannot go into these aspects of thematter. We have seen from the counter affidavit, the steps takenby the Government between the Government of India with a view toimprove the bilateral relationship between two neighbouringcountries. These averments made in the counter affidavit areplaced on record.10. With these observations, the writ petition isdismissed. No costs."36. It is submitted that the welfare and safety of the Indianfishermen is consistent goal and the Government has always taken it up ona priority basis with Srilanka at highest levels, any incident involvingsafety and security of Indian fishermen in the waters between the twocountries.37. It is submitted that whenever the Indian fishermen alongwith the boats is apprehended by Srilankan authorities, the Governmenthas intervened and got them released and got them repatriated to Indiaexpeditiously.38. It is submitted that the problem of fishermen of both Indiaand Srilanka is that their fishing vessels straying into each other'sterritorial waters.39. It is submitted that the Indian fishermen are allowed tofish on the Indian side of IMBL but not cross over it and exploit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11resources in waters of another country.40. It is submitted that the allegations about deaths ofvarious individuals as mentioned in the writ petitions at the hands ofthe Sri Lankan Navy are mere allegations which have not been proved.However, it is admitted that there were reports of attack on Indianfishermen in January 2011 allegedly by Srilankan Naval personnel in whichtwo fishermen died in the incident.41. The first incident was said to have occurred on 12/1/2011 inwhich the Indian Fishing Trawler was reported to have been fired at bySrilankan Navy resulting in an Indian fisherman Mr.Pandiyan being killed.The Indian Trawler was on the Srilankan side of the InternationalMaritime Boundary Line (IMBL). 42. The second incident that took place on January 22-23, 2011when another Indian fisherman Mr.Jayakumar died in the waters betweenIndia and Srilanka allegedly by strangulation. The Srilankan Governmenthas denied the involvement of their Navy in either of these incidents.43. It is submitted that the receipt of the news, the Governmentof India had immediately taken up the matter with the SrilankanGovernment and expressed deep concern and regret at these incidents. Arequest has been made to the Srilankan to investigate these incidents andensure that these are not repeated. The Srilankan Government has alsobeen asked not to use force. But the Srilankan Government has denied anysuch involvement of its Navy in these deaths but has reiterated itscommitment to ascertain the facts behind the incidents.44. It is also the stand of the respondents 1 to 5 that theGovernment of India viewed these developments, seriously and ForeignSecretary visited Srilanka from January 30 – 31, 2011 to convey theGovernment of India's strong concern over the killing of the fishermen.45. Both sides agree that use of force cannot be justified underany circumstances. The Srilankan Government has reiterated theircommitment to ascertain the facts behind the incidents.46. Again on 7/2/2011, the Honourable External Affairs Ministerof India, took up this matter with the Srilankan counterpart and conveyeddeep concern with regard to the violence against the fishermen.47. It is submitted that since 2008, there is a substantialdecrease in violent incidents. It is also stated that India and Srilankahave made an joint statement on fishing issued on 26th October, 2008,which reads as follows:-"Keeping in mind the humanitarian and livelihooddimension of the fishermen issue, India and Srilanka have agreedto put in place practical arrangements to deal with bonafideIndian and Srilankan fishermen crossing the InternationalMaritime Boundary Line (IMBL). This was agreed to during thevisit to New Delhi on 26th October 2008 of Honourable BasilRajapaksa, Member of Parliament and Senior Adviser to thePresident of Srilanka. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12As part of these practical arrangements, following thedesignation by the Government of Srilanka of sensitive areasalong the Srilankan coastline and their intimation to theGovernment of India, Indian fishing vessels will not ventureinto these identified sensitive areas. Further, there will beno firing on Indian fishing vessels. It was agreed that Indianfishing vessels would carry valid registration/permit and thefishermen would have on person valid identity cards issued bythe Government of Tamil Nadu.India and Srilanka have agreed to continue with theirdiscussions, initiated in 2005, on the proposed Memorandum ofUnderstanding on development and cooperation in the field offisheries."48. The details of the incidents have also pleaded in thecounter which reads as under:-(j). Subsequent to the October 2008, Joint Statementbetween India and Srilanka, while in 2008, 1456 Indian fishermenwere apprehended by Srilankan Government, in 2009, 127 fishermenwere apprehended and in 2010, apprehension had come down to 34.Further, while in 2008, number of fishermen reported killed was5 and 1 missing in 2009, there were no deaths of Indianfishermen and in 2010, one death was reported. In 2011 threeIndian fishermen have died in three separate incidents. It isevident that, since 2008, there has been a drop of around 90% inthe number of Indian fishermen who have been arrested after theOctober 2008 understanding was put in place. From the above, itis evident that the October 2008 understanding has had asalutary effect on the situation.(k). That the incidents of apprehension of and firingon Indian fishermen allegedly by the Srilankan Navy have been alongstanding issue. The incidents of apprehension of Indianfishermen by Srilankan Navy have taken place in Srilankanwaters. The Indian Coast Guard Ships on patrol duty have notcome across incidents where Indian fishermen were fired upon inIndian waters. Further, the International maritime boundaryline is regularly patrolled by ships and aircrafts of IndianNavy and Coast Guard.(l). That in all incidents in which Indian fishermenare reported or alleged to have been killed or missing orpresumed dead, the Srilankan Navy have denied their involvement.Further, they have stated that their Navy never enters Indianterritorial waters and no naval unit from Srilanka is involvedin any such incident. Even though the Srilankan Government hasdenied any involvement of its Navy in the firing on Indianfishermen, India has continued to raise the matter withSrilanka. However, in doing so, the Government of India isguided by international diplomatic norms governing interactionwith another sovereign Government which has full sovereignpowers to patrol its territory, including its territorial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13waters. Further, the risks and dangers of straying across theIMBL and cross border fishing have been explained and emphasizedto the Indian fishermen community in Tamil Nadu by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu and the India Coast Guards.Consequently, Indian fishermen have been advised to make everyeffort not to stray across the International Maritime BoundaryLine (IMBL) and not to treat into Srilankan waters for their ownsafety and security. According to available information, atpresent, no Indian fishermen is in Srilankan custody on accountof straying in Srilankan waters for fishing activities.However, currently there are thirty five (35) Indians inSrilankan jails for their alleged involvement in offencesrelated to drug trafficking and narcotics.m. That the status of Katchachativu Island washistorically a matter of dispute between British India andCeylon (now Srilanka) and there was no agreed boundary. On thebasis of historical and legal evidence collected from variousrecord offices in India and abroad, the legal aspects of thematter were examined exhaustively by the Attorney General ofIndia in August 1970. On an evaluation of the relevant facts inrelation to the manifestation of the sovereignty of theGovernment of India on the one hand and the Government ofSrilanka on the other and also the nature and extent ofcompeting claims, the Attorney General concluded that on balancethe sovereignty of Katchachativu was and is with Ceylon and notIndia. Further, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitutionof India in W.P.(Civil) No.561 of 2007, filed byMs.J.Jayalalitha present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, in theHon'ble Supreme Court of India, seeking a direction to the UOIto annexe Katchachativu, is pending. While so the present writpetitions agitating the very same issue could not be entertainedby this Hon'ble High Court.n. That the Agreements of 1974 and 1976 between Indiaand Srilanka settled the International Maritime Boundary Line(IMBL) and also the dispute relating to the status ofKatchchativu island. The 'Agreement on the boundary in historicwaters between the two countries and related matters' of 1974wherein the two countries "Having examined the entire questionfrom all angles and taken into account the historical and otherevidence and legal aspects thereof," and thus, determined "theboundary line in historic waters between India and Srilanka andto settle the related matters in the manner which is fair andequitable to both side." Accordingly, the island ofKatchchativu fell on the Srilankan side of the InternationalMaritime Boundary Line (IMBL). In 1976, India and Srilankasigned the 'Agreement on the Maritime boundary between the twocountries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal andrelated matters' that extended determination of India's maritimeboundary with Srilanka into the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay ofBengal. The 1976 Agreement establishes sovereignty of eachcountry "over the historic waters and territorial seas, as wellas over the islands falling on its side of the aforesaidboundary," and sovereign rights and exclusive "over the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone as well asover their resources, whether living or non-living." Therefore,the petitioner's claim that the Katchchativu Island was "given"or "ceded" to Srilanka is factually incorrect.o. That it is stated that Article 5 of the 1974Agreement allows Indian fishermen and pilgrims "access to visitKatchchativu as hitherto", subject to recognition of Srilanka'ssovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over thewaters, the islands, the continental shelf, and the sub-soilfalling on its own side of the boundary line as enshrined inArticle 4. Article 6 of the same Agreement states that "vesselsof India and Srilanka will enjoy in each other's waters suchrights as they have traditionally enjoyed therein." No rightsof fishing in Srilankan waters were bestowed under the 1974 or1976 Agreements. Under the above agreements, the traditionalrights allowed are access for our fishermen and pilgrims tovisit Katchchativu for drying nets, resting, and the annual St.Antony festival. The right of access is not understood to coverfishing rights around the island to Indian fishermen. While theaccess to Katchchativu was restricted by the SrilankanGovernment on security grounds in the mid-1980s, this does notamount to extinguishment of the rights but merely holding themin abeyance in view of the prevailing security situation in thePalk Straits. These rights of access for Indian fishermen andpilgrims to Katchchativu Island were resorted in 2003. InFebruary, 2010 and also in March, 2011 festival of St. Anthonywas held on Katchchativu Island. It is reported that around3000 Indian pilgrims participated in this festival.p. That further, in Writ Petition No.1820/2011, thepetitioner has incorrectly stated that "the general rule thatthe maritime border line should be not less than 20 nauticalmiles." This is inconsistent with the relevant provision of theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea applicable inthis instance. Article 15 of UNCLOS which deals withdelimitation of the territorial sea between States with oppositeor adjacent coasts (like India and Srilanka) provides that,"Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to eachother, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreementbetween them to the contrary, to extend its territorial seabeyond the median line every point of which is equidistant fromthe nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth ofthe territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. Theabove provision does not apply, however, where it is necessaryby reason of historic title or other special circumstances todelimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which isat variance therewith." India and Srilanka have bilaterallynegotiated and demarcated the boundary line between them in 1974under which Katchchativu falls on the Srilankan side.q. That Maritime Boundary between India and Srilankahad already been delineated vide following Agreements: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15(a). Agreement between Srilanka and India on theboundary in historic waters between the two countries andrelated matters, 1974;(b). Agreement between Srilanka and India on themaritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf ofMannar and the Bay of bengal and related matters, 1976 and(c). Supplementary Agreement between Srilanka and Indiaon the extension of the maritime boundary between the twocountries in the Gulf of Mannar from position 13 m to thetrijunction between Srilanka, India and Maldives, 1976.Under International Law, these Agreements are binding onthe Parties and cannot be unilaterally altered by any one Party.r. That it has been brought out earlier that theAgreement of 1974 with Srilanka is not understood to coverfishing rights. Further, given that Indian fishermen andpilgrims are allowed to visit Katchchativu Island under 1974Agreement and that there is no hindrance to exercise of rightsof access to visit Katchchativu Island and further given thatthe Government has reached an understanding in October 2008 withSrilanka to address some of the humanitarian and livelihoodissues of fishermen."49. On the pleadings referred to above, the question to bedecided in this writ petition is"Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertainand try these writ petitions?"50. In order to appreciate, it has to be seen that both theInternational Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) agreement between India andSrilanka clearly stipulates that each country shall have sovereignty andexclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters and Islands. It isnot for this Court to issue any directions to permit the fishermen tofish in the water falling outside the Indian jurisdiction.51. As regards the question of security of the fishermen isconcerned, the counter filed by the Union of India shows that everypossible steps are being taken. This Court in exercise of writjurisdiction cannot issue directions to the respondent to deploy IndianAir Force or Indian Navy, so as to act against the Navy of Srilanka.52. It is the case of the petitioners that the Srilankan Navy isviolating the Indian borders and entering into Indian territory area.This policy decision to be taken by the Government of India, and does notfall within the purview of the Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.53. The submission of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadufishermen are entitled to innocent passage also cannot be accepted.54. As according to Article 19 of the Law of Sea, the passageis innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order orsecurity of the coastal State. Such passage is to be in conformity with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16the Convention and the Rules of International Law. 55. It clearly stipulates that passage of Foreignship shall beconsidered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of thecoastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of thefollowing activities:-(a). any threat or use of force against thesovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence ofthe coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of theprinciples of international law embodied in the Charter of theUnited Nations;(b). any exercise of practice with weapons of any kind;(c). Any act aimed at collecting information to theprejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;(d). any act of propaganda aimed at affecting thedefence or security of the coastal State;(e). the launching, landing or taking on board of anyaircraft;(f). the launching, landing or taking on board of anymilitary device;(g). the loading or unloading of any commodity,currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigrationor sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;(h). any act of wilful and serious pollution contraryto this Convention;(i). any fishing activities;(j). the carrying out of research or survey activities;(k). any act aimed at interfering with any otherfacilities or installations of the coastal State;(l). any other activity not having a direct bearing onpassage".56. Therefore, once it is admitted by the petitioners that theygo for fishing, it is not possible to claim the right of innocentpassage. It is also, a well settled law, that it is not open to theCourts to have judicial review in the matter concerning the foreignpolicy relations with other Countries.57. The petitioners in these writ petitions are seekingintervention of the Court to interfere with the agreement entered intobetween the two countries and are also seeking the deployment of IndianNavy and Air Force which does not fall within the jurisdiction of thisCourt.58. Pleadings of the writ petition also shows that it is notbased on any positive authenticated and proved facts, but based on thereport of the press/Correspondent. 59. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of RAVINDER KUMARSHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS reported in 1999 (7) SCC – 435 haslaid down the Commissioner's Report cannot be treated as proof of fact asthe statement in the newspaper is only a hearsay. The relief claimed inthese writ petitions do not fall within the writ jurisdiction of this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17Court as these are policy decisions to be taken by the Government. ThisCourt cannot direct the Government to deploy Indian Navy or airforce forprotection of fishermen. It is for the State Government and CentralGovernment to take a policy decision. As already noticed the pleadingsin these writs are general not specific.60. In one of the writ petitions, it was vehemently contended bythe learned counsel for the petitioner that the Union of India should bedirected to file a case in International Court of Justice to claimcompensation against Srilankan Government for the killing of fishermen bythe Srilankan Navy and for direction to stop attacks on the Tamilfishermen.61. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for thepetitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable High Courtof Gujarat in JAGJIT SINGH AURORA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (Special CivilApplication No.3633 of 1999) decided on 22/3/2011, wherein the directionswere issued by the Honourable High Court of Gujarat to the Union of Indiato take up the matter in the International Court of Justice for releaseof prisoners of war said to be detained by Pakistan.62. The Honourable Gujarat High Court held in the judgmentreferred to above that in view of Simla agreement entered into betweenIndia and Pakistan, it will be open to the Government of India to takematter to International Court of Justice. 63. It is pertinent to mention here that this judgment of theHonourable Gujarat High Court is under challenge before the HonourableSupreme Court of India, wherein this part of jurisdiction directing theUnion of India to go to International Court of Justice has been orderedto be stayed. 64. Even otherwise, this Court cannot agree with the decision ofthe Honourable Gujarat High Court for the reason that the jurisdiction ofthe International Court of Justice is of two types, viz.,(i). Contentious jurisdiction and(ii). Advisory jurisdiction65. The Contentious jurisdiction is further divided into twoheads i.e., Voluntary Jurisdiction under Article 36 (1) of the ICJCharter where both the States have to refer the dispute to theInternational Court of Justice. This cannot be done unilaterally by asingle State. 66. The optional or Compulsory jurisdiction is based on optionalclause under Article 36 (2) of the Statute. The Honourable Gujarat HighCourt in fact invoked this clause by referring to the Clause of Simlaagreement, but it failed to notice the Indian Declaration dated 15thSeptember, 1973 under Optional Clause of the Statute which reads asunder:-"I have the honour to declare, on behalf of theGovernment of the Republic of India, that they accept inconformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18the Court, until such time as notice may be given toterminate such acceptance, as compulsory, ipso facto andwithout special agreement and on the basis of reciprocity,jurisdiction of the international Court of Justice over alldisputes other than - 1. disputes in regard to which the parties to thedispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to someother method or methods of settlement;2. disputes with the government of any State whichis or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations;3. disputes in regard to matters which areessentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Republicof India;4. disputes relating to or connected with facts orsituations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual orcollective action taken in self-defence or resistance toaggression, fulfilment of obligations imposed byinternational bodies and other similar or related acts,measures or situations in which India is, has been or may infuture be involved;5. disputes with regard to which any other party toa dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice exclusively for and inrelation to the purpose of such disputes or which theacceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalfof a party to a dispute was deposited or ratified less than12 months prior to the filing of the application bringingthe dispute before the Court;6. disputes where the jurisdiction of the Court isor may be founded on the basis of a treaty concluded underthe auspices of the League of Nations, unless the Governmentof India specially agree to jurisdiction to each case;7. disputes concerning the interpretation orapplication of a multilateral treaty unless all the partiesto the treaty are also parties to the case before the Courtor Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction;8. disputes with the Government of any State withwhich, on the date of an application to bring a disputebefore the Court, the Government of India has no diplomaticrelations or which has not been recognized by the Governmentof India;9. disputes with non-sovereign states orterritories;10. disputes with India concerning or relation to-a. the status of its territory or the modificationof delimitation of its frontiers or any other matterconcerning boundaries,b. the territorial sea, the continental shelf andthe margins, the exclusive economic zone, and other zones ofnational maritime jurisdiction including the regulation andcontrol of marine pollution and the conduct of scientificresearch of foreign vessels, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19c. the condition and status of its islands, baysand gulfs and that of the bays and gulfs that for historicalreasons belong to itd. the airspace superjacent to its land andmaritime territory ande. the determination and delimitation of itsmaritime boundaries;11. disputes prior to the date of this declaration,including any dispute, the foundations, reasons, facts,causes, origins, definitions, allegations, or basis of whichexisted prior to this date, even if they are submittedbrought to the knowledge of the Court hereafter.12. this declaration revokes and replaces theprevious declaration made by the Government of India on 14thSeptember, 1959 ........."67. It would be seen that the Government of India has not agreedto compulsory jurisdiction regarding the dispute raised in the writpetition therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for directing the Unionof India to go to International Court of Justice cannot be accepted northe decision of the Honourable Gujarat High Court can be accepted by thisCourt.68. Admittedly, the earlier writ petition claiming similarrelief were dismissed by this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.3421 and 3422 of2011. The Honourable Supreme Court in Bar Council of India Vs. UNION OFINDIA 2012 (4) R.C.R (CIVIL) 262 has been pleased to answer the questionthat writ petition is dismissed in liminie, can the point be raised againin identical petition. It was held that though the Court hasjurisdiction to entertain such matters but it would normally exercise itsdiscretion against it. As it is against the public policy and welldefined principles of judicial discretion not to entertain or hearpetition relating to the same subject matter where the matter was heardand dismissed on earlier occasion. 69. These writ petitions therefore, deserved to be dismissed onthis short ground.70. Though all these writ petitions are not competent, howeverkeeping in view of the fact that the question with regard to the life andliberty of fishermen was raised in these writ petitions. The Union ofIndia as well as the State of Tamil Nadu were directed to file anaffidavit in this Court pointing out the steps taken to protect theinterest of the Tamil fishermen venturing into the sea.71. In response an affidavit has been filed by the DeputyDirector General (Operations & Coastal Security), Indian Coast Guard,Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, which reads as under:-"1. I was working as Chief Staff Officer (Operations)at Headquarters Coast Guard Region (East), Near Napier Bridge,Chennai- 600 009. I am well conversant with the facts andcircumstance of the case from the available records. I havebeen duly authorised to file this additional Counter Affidavit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20on behalf of Respondent No.4.1. This additional Counter Affidavit may kindly be read inconjunction with all previous Counter Affidavits alreadyfiled on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 5 in the instant WritPetition and other Writ Petition Nos.1740/2011, 1741/2011 and1820/2011.2. This additional Counter Affidavit is being filed to clarifycertain issues that arose for consideration when the mattercame up for hearing on 24.09.2012. The following are theissues :(a) Is it possible for the Indian Coast Guard to preventcrossing of the IMBL in Palk Strait by the Indian Fishermen?(b) What steps can be taken to stop the said crossing overby the Indian fisherman in order to avoid this recurringproblems when they cross the IMBL ?(c) What additional measures can be taken by the CoastGuard, Govt of India and the State Government to safe guardthe security of Indian fishermen from the alleged attacksof Srilankan Navy with in Indian waters ?3. It is submitted that before offering the requisiteclarifications to the issues mentioned in para 3 above, it ispertinent to mention the following : (a) The Indian Coast Guard was raised as an Armed Force ofthe Union in 1977 and is governed by the Coast Guard Act,1978 (Act 30 of 1978). As per Sectin 14(1) of the said Act,the primary duty of the Coast Guard is to protect suchmeasures, as it thinks fit, the maritime and other nationalinterests of India in the maritime zones of India. UnderSection 14(2) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 the measuresreferred to therein inter alia includes providing protectionto fishermen and giving assistance to them at sea while indistress (emphasis added).(b)As per the emphasis indicated above, the Coast Guardprovides protection and assistance to fishermen while indistress, provided such information is timely passed with aview to initiate quick response and render necessary timelyassistance. It is however submitted that though the CoastGuard and Indian Naval Ships are regularly on patrolling dutyon the Indian side of the Palk Bay there has never been anoccasion when any incident of Indian fishermen being attackedby Srilankan Navy in Indian Waters, has been reported to theCoast Guard either by the fishermen under attack or by anyshore authority to whom they would have passed such message.It is understood that most of the fishermen in Tamil Nadu areequipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) (Annexure-I)and VHF Radio communication sets (Annexure-II). In additionCoast Guard in liasion with ISRO Bangalore have distributedDistress Alert Transmitters (DATs) (Annexure-III) to a largenumber of fishermen besides widely publishing the Coast GuardEmergency number 1554 for any distress at sea. This Emergencynumber can be contacted by the fishermen through their mobilefrom their vessels (provided there is mobile connectivity). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21(c) 'Fisheries' is an exclusive State subject under Entry 21of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution ofIndia, while "Fisheries beyond territorial water" is anexclusive Union subject under Entry 57 of List I of theConstitution. The State Legislature has thus exclusivecompetence over fisheries situated within the territory ofits State including those within its adjoining territorialwaters. Accordingly, the State of Tamil Nadu has enacted theTamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983 (Act No.8 of1983). The powers to regulate, restrict or prohibit thefishing within the specified area is provided in Section 5 ofthe said Act of 1983. On the other hand, the CentralGovernment has enacted the Maritime Zones of India(Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 (ActNo.42 of 1981) wherein the officers of the Coast Guard havebeen designated as authorised officer and the powers to beexercised by them with respect to foreign fishing vesselshave been provided in Section 9 of the said Act of 1981.4. The clarifications as sought vide para 3 above are submittedad seriatim as follows :(a) Is it possible for the Indian Coast Guard to preventcrossing of the IMBL in Palk Strait by the Indian Fishermen. Itis humbly submitted that it is not practically possible for theIndian Coast Guard to prevent Indian fishermen from crossingthe IMBL in Palk Strait for the following reasons :(i) that the Indian Coast Guard is notempowered under any Act, Rules or Regulationsto detain and prosecue Indian fishermentrying to cross IMBL.(ii) the IMBL of Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannarextends around 160 nautical miles (296 Kms)and it is not practical and feasible for anyagency to seal the entire IMBL by positioningunits in order to prevent fishermen crossingIMBL.(iii) that the Indian fishermen from numerousfishing hamlets i the Palk Bay venture outinto the sea for fishing on nominated days ingroups of hundred or more, many of whichcross the IMBL.(b) Steps that can be taken to stop the said crossing over by theIndian Fisherman in order to avoid this recurring problems whenthey cross the IMBL. - The following are the steps that can betaken :(i)The Indian Coast Guard havedistributed free of cost about 126 DATs(Distress Alert Transmitters) developedby ISRO to the Indian fishermenoperating in Palk Bay in the last twoyears. The Indian fishermen have notraised any distress signals from theseDATs till date. Thus, the fishermen beadvised to carry and utilise theservices of DATs while they are indistress at sea. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22(ii) The fishermen also need to thesensitized by the State FisheriesDepartment official about theconsequences of poaching in Sri Lankanwaters, amounting to infringement ofsovereign rights of another country.The fishermen should also be made awareabout Tamil Nadu Govt orders and thefact that crossing IMBL is a potentialtarget for the non state actors towardsanti-national activities.(c) Additional measures - The additional measures that canbe taken to safe guard the security of Indian Fishermenwithin Indian waters are as follows :(i)All types of fishing vessels includingvallams and Catamarans operating withinthe Palk Bay be registered and be fittedwith minimum one Global PositioningSystem (GPS) and one VHF communicationequipment with multiple channelselection facility, with a view to knowtheir positions at all times besidecommunicating on radio VHF set to thenearest shore authority for anyassistance.(ii) There are about five light housesoperated and maintained by DirectorateGeneral of Light Houses and Lightships(DGLL) on the Indian side of the PalkBay area. The reach of each light houseat night may be suitably calibrated sothat it dips exactly at the IMBL orshort of the IMBL for assisting fishingvessel operating without the GPS andother navigation equipment at night toappreciate their proximity to IMBL.(iii) Further, the fishermen operatingduring day time can be assisted bylaying marker buoys at regular intervalsalong the IMBL.(iv) The Fisheries Department of the StateGovernment can consider the use of GPSbased cost effective fishermen locationtracking and weather forecasting alertsystem which activates its hooter andsiren thus alerting fishermen crossingthe IMBL which are locally available.(v) The State Fisheries Department mayconsider establishing VHF RadioFisheries Control Centre along thePalk Bay to interact with fishermenat any given time whilst operatingat sea. The fishing boats shallthus remain in regular contact with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23these control centres as deemed fit,to ensure the whereabouts of eachfishing vessel is known at alltimes. The Coast Guard Search andRescue Emergency Number 1554 canalso be used for informing in anydistress at sea.(vi) In today's world, majority ofpopulation uses mobile phoneconnectivity. The experience of theCoast Guard in the recent past hasbeen that most of the distressmessages from fishing boats arecommunicated to the shoreestablishments including theirowner, by mobile phone whileoperating in the network range. TheState Fisheries Department may seekindulgence of mobile phone operatorsto extend the network reach in thePalk Bay upto the IMBL, keepingsecurity the concern in place. Thiswill be of great assistance to thepoor fishing community especiallythe non-mechanised vallams, wherefitment of GPS and VHF set may notbe practicable."72. The State of Tamil Nadu has also filed an affidavit showingthe steps being taken to provide security of the Tamil Nadu Fishermenwhich reads as under:-"6. It is submitted that a number of steps are also beingtaken by various departments concerned in order to ensurethat the fishermen of the State are safe and secure whileseeking to pursue their livelihood. In this regards, inorder to monitor the number of boats going out of thefishing harbours or fish landing centers, especially in thePalk Bay area, the Department of Fisheries issues fishingtokens for all the mechanized fishing boats venturing forfishing. The fishing tokens are collected back on the nextday to ensure the return of all the mechanized boats alongwith the crew safely. It is submitted that if, in case anyfishing boat doesn't return within the stipulated time tothe shore, immediate action is taken for aerial and seasearch and rescue of fishermen and the boat with the helpof Marine Police, Indian Coast Guard and Indian Navy.7. It is submitted that in order to ensure the safety ofthe fishermen, the Government of Tamil Nadu have also setup 12 Marine Police Stations, 40 Check Posts and 12Outposts across the coastal areas of the State. The MarinePolice Stations function like a regular police stationswith full powers to attend to law and order problems atsea, conduct searches on vessels etc., effect arrests and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 24register cases. Sea patrolling is done by boats within 5Nautical Miles of land as per the stipulations. During theyear 2011, the Coastal Security Group of Police haverescued 41 boats across the State and rescued 181 personsin the process. It is also submitted that during 2010, 51boats and 190 persons were rescued. During 2012, 14 boatswere rescued and 44 persons were saved by the CoastalSecurity Group.8. It is further submitted that the officials of theFisheries Department and also the officials of MarineCoastal Police keep on having awareness sittings with thefishermen, highlighting the importance of adhering to thesafety and security Rules and guidelines while conductingthe fishing. Awareness programmes are also conducted inthis regard through Fisheries Cooperative Societies inorder to highlight the safety and security measures. Thefishermen are being constantly sensitized to carry allvalid documents like Identity card, Fishing VesselRegistration Certificates and Fishing License issued by theFisheries Department and sticking to the Rules and Securityguidelines.9. It is submitted that the fishermen are given astipulated quantity of sales tax exempted diesel, whileissuing the tokens in order to ensure that the dieselsupplied is not misused by anybody. This is another aspecttaken to indirectly ensure their own security.10. It is submitted that in order to further ensure thesecurity and safety of fishermen, the State Government, incoordination with the Government of India, are in theprocess of introducing a scheme for "Issuance of Biometricidentity cards to Marine Fishermen." Capturing ofBiometric features has been completed for 1.33 lakh activefishermen and 12,060 cards have just been received and aregoing to be distributed in the near future. The issuanceof Biometric Identity Cards will be a further step toensure easy identification and safety and security ofbonafide fishermen.11. It is submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu arealso coordinating with the Government of India to introducean "online registration of Fishing Vessels", which will beyet another measure for ensuring coastal security. Thisstep will ensure that each fishing vessel will have anunique identity and registration, which will also beavailable in the database of all the security agencies.12. It is submitted that in order to ensure the safety andsecurity of the fishermen, the Government of Tamil Naduhave also introduced the Scheme of "Seamless RadioCommunication Network" by fixing Very High Frequency (VHF)sets fitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) in fishingcrafts. The total project outlay is Rs.7.73 crores. As a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 25first phase, the Government is providing Seamlesscommunication facilities in Ramanthapuram District, wherethe safety and security issues of the fishermen are themost crucial. Already 3 High mast towers have beenestablished in the District and the Fisheries Department isin the process of distributing VHF sets for fishing boats.As a pilot step, 18 VHF sets have been distributed to thecountry boat owners in Ramanathapuram District this yearafter getting the frequency allocated for these sets byGovernment of India (through their Wireless Planning andCoordination Wing (WPC), a branch of the Ministry ofCommunications and Information Technology). Procurement ofnearly 3,100 VHF sets is over under this Scheme. TheWireless Planning and Coordination Wing (WPC) of Governmentof India is responsible for issuing amateur radio licensesand allotting the frequency spectrum and monitoring thefrequency spectrum. The State Government is awaiting theallocation of frequency for the VHF sets at the earliest byGovernment of India to give these sets to the fishermen.Once the frequency is allocated by Government of India,this process will be completed and this will be a big stepin ensuring the safety of fishermen.13. It is also to be submitted that though many fishermen,especially of mechanized boats possess the GlobalPositioning System (GPS) device, the possession of a GPSDevice cannot alone assist the agencies concerned to locatethe position of the boats. The Global Positioning Systemcan assist the fishermen to ascertain their individuallocations. The equipments that will help the authoritiesconcerned to track the boats in distress are the AutomaticIdentification System (AIS) transponders, or RadioFrequency Identification devices. These devices canidentify the location of the boats in distress. Thistechnology is likely to be introduced by Government ofIndia in various States, and as and when it is introducedin Tamil Nadu, necessary support will be rendered as thisis a beneficial technology for the safety and security ofthe fishermen.14. It is submitted that despite all the steps being takenup as enlisted above, the Government of Tamil Nadu is alsotaking sincere steps to assist the fishermen and theirfamilies in case of any eventualities. The Government ofTamil Nadu are paying a relief amount of Rs.3 lakh each tothe family of the fisherman who lose their lives due toshooting by Sri Lankan Navy, Rs.5 lakh to the family of thefisherman, if the deceased fisherman is the sole breadwinner of the family, Rs.50,000/- the fisherman seriouslyinjured due to shooting and Rs.20,000/- to the fishermenwho sustain minor injuries, as per the orders issued inG.O.Ms.No.128, AHD & F (FS 6) Department dated 20/9/2008.15. It is finally submitted that a permanent solution tothe threat to safety and security of the fishermen can only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 26be had once the traditional and historical fishing rightsof the Indian fishermen are restored. The issue ofretrieval of Katchatheevu and restoration of fishing rightsof Tamil Nadu fishermen in the Palk Bay area in theirtraditional fishing areas is already under litigationbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.561 of2008 (Civil) and based the aspects pertaining to the safetyand security of the fishermen, the Tamil Nadu LegislativeAssembly has also resolved to implead the Government ofTamil Nadu in this case."73. The affidavits filed by the Union of India and the State ofTamil Nadu shows that Central and State Governments have taken the matterseriously and are taking adequate steps to protect the interest of TamilNadu fishermen, therefore, no further directions in this regard are alsocalled for. The writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed. No costs.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.Mvs.Sd/-Deputy Registrar[Accounts]/True Copy/Assistant RegistrarTo1. The Home Secretary to Government Union of India, North Block, New Delhi 1.2. The Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 1.3. The Secretary Ministry of External Affairs,Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 1.4. The Chief Secretary State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.5. The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.6. The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.7. The Surveyor General of India office of the Surveyor General New Delhi.8. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Department of Forests Chennai.9. The District Collector, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District.10. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2711. The Union of India The Department of Home Affairs Government of India New Delhi.12. The Cabinet Secretary Union of India Cabinet Secretariat Rashtrapathi Bhavan New Delhi 110 001.13. The National Security Advisor Union of India Prime Minister's Secretariat New Delhi 110 001.14. The Deputy Director General Operations and Coastal Security Indian Coast Guard Ministry of Defence Govt of India Coast Guard Headquarters National Stadium Complex New Delhi 110 001.15. The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi.16. The Director, General Operations and Coastral Secretary Coast Guard Headquarters, National Statium Complex, New Delhi. +1 cc to Mr.A.Saravanan, Advocate Sr.No.37115. +1 cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.37177.Writ Petition (MD) Nos.1740, 1741, 1820, 4190 of 2011and 1496 of 2012Dated:02.11.201227P/19CRPB 02.11.2012