DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM
TOPIC:
INDIAN FISHERIES
SUBJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
NAME OF THE FACULTY:
DR. K. SUDHA MA’AM
NAME OF THE STUDENT:
V. SRINIVASA PRABHAT
SEMESTER:
5
ROLL NO:
20LLB125
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude towards the Environmental law professor Dr. K
Sudha mam for allotting this topic as my study paper. I would like to thank my friends and
family for their support and finally I would like to thank our vice chancellor sir for providing
the required resources that is used to gather the information on this work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. ABSTRACT

2. SYNOPSIS

3. HISTORY OF INDIAN FISHERIES

4. TYPES OF FISHERIES

5. THE ACTS

6. CASE LAW EXAMPLES

7. CONCLUSION
 ABSTRACT:

Nine states and four union territories make up the 6500-kilometer Indian coastline. 6 million
fisherman work in India's 4.5 million-tonne maritime fishery. Our continental shelf the main
marine fishing area is about 0.5 million square kilometres. We are the third-biggest fish
producer (inland fisheries included). These stats paint a pretty picture of our fisherman's
situation, but the truth is frequently harsh and cruel.

The mechanized procedure, which began in the early 1950s, has had little influence on India's
maritime fisheries. 181284 traditional, 44578 motorized, and 53684 automated vessels made
up the marine fishing fleet in 2001. Traditional, motorized, and mechanized boats provide
9%, 26%, and 65%, respectively. Traditional vessels indicate many traditional fishermen.
They do not produce much marine fish, but they are essential to the region's fisheries. Most
of these fishermen are subsistence fishers. These Indian Ocean veterans have occupied this
ecological niche for generations and have no alternatives. Trawlers produce fish, but their
main goal is profit. Maximizing profit is neither moral nor immoral, but invading traditional
fishing sites is a serious issue that can lead to fisheries mismanagement. Traditional
fishermen know how to catch a lot without harming the ecology or coastal habitat.

This article examines the main fisheries management divisions, concentrating on state and
extra-legal procedures. India's marine management history and the necessity for a sustainable
strategy will be the main topics.
 INTRODUCTION:

According to the Living Blue Planet Report1, the worldwide marine fisheries are in a dire and
alarming situation. The global fishing fleet is two to three times greater than what the waters
can support sustainably. In other words, humans remove significantly more fish from the
ocean than can be restored. As a result, 31% of global fish stocks are categorized as
overfished and 58% as fully exploited, without the capacity to produce additional harvests.
The situation in India is quite unique. As a developing nation, the country's marine fisheries
are currently in the process of reaching maturity. From 0.53 million tonnes in 1950 to 3.9
million tonnes in 2012, India's marine fish production has expanded by more than sevenfold,
while exports of marine fish and fish derivatives have increased from Rs. 35 crores in 1970 to
Rs. 33,000 crores in 2014. About 80-88 percent of the projected output potential of 4.41
million tonnes is exploited. According to a recent national assessment of fish stock state, 74%
of the analyzed resources are in healthy condition, with few stocks in depleted or collapsed
status. There are 0.99 million active fishermen who depend on these resources for their
livelihoods.

Like many developing nations, India's fisheries are administered by a multitude of

government organizations. According to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India,
which outlines the topics and jurisdictions of the Union and State Governments, the
responsibility for fisheries and marine habitats is divided among numerous Ministries and
agencies at the Central and State levels. Ministries of Agriculture, Commerce and Industry,
Environment and Forests, Food Processing Industries, and Defense play significant
involvement in the fisheries sector of the federal government.
SYNOPSIS

OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

The object of the research is to understand the history of Indian fisheries and how the
legislations have been enacted and what affect did they have.

SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The scope of the research is limited to only the Indian fisheries and the legislations enacted in
India.

METHOD OF RESEARCH

The method of research is doctrinal research and the citation method followed is OSCOLA

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Whether the policies and legislation enacted by the Indian government throughout the years
have contributed towards the upliftment of Indian fisheries? If yes, how?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Secondary Sources

1. Fisheries Legislation in India written by Rajesh K.M contains the information about
all the legislations that had been enacted since that past. The author studied it
thoroughly and presented it discussing how they have showed their effect in
development of the Indian fisheries.
2. Indian Fisheries written by Rohan Dominic Mathews was about the historical past of
Indian fisheries from which the Author presented the aspect of they affected the
present situation of Indian histories.
3. Fisheries Sector in India is an article written by Pragati ghost from which the author
wrote about different types of Fisheries in India and how they were governed.

For writing this research paper, the author has also studied many other commentaries,
academic articles, and journals on the same topic.

Primary sources:

Indian Fisheries act; 1897

Indian Marine Fisheries Code etc;

HISTORY OF INDIAN FISHERIES:

In the past, Indian Fisheries have been widely documented in prose, poetry, and a few
journals; the attention then shifts to post-independence years. Prior to independence, there has
never been a full analysis of the 19th and early 20th century fisheries. Once we know the
situation of fisheries prior to independence, we will have a fundamental understanding of the
post-independence period. My primary goal is to illustrate systems that reference community-
based management and private fisheries.

Poems composed between the first and fourth centuries A.D. document fishing communities
and their culture. Pliny, a Roman explorer, wrote in the first century A.D. about fishing
settlements. While a certain Friar Ororic noted: "There are fishes in those seas that come
swimming... in such abundance that for a great distance into the seas nothing can be seen but
the back of fishes, which casting themselves on the shore, do permit men for the space of
three days to come and take as many of them as they wish."1 Due to the dearth of reliable data
covering all states and the paucity of fisheries-related archive data, it is extraordinarily
difficult to provide a comprehensive picture.

Types of Fisheries:

More than 1,800 distinct species of fish are known to occur in the coastal and interior waters
of the United States, although very few are taken in significant numbers. Experts in
pisciculture have categorized commercially significant marine fish into 15 groupings and
freshwater fish into 8 groups.

The sea fish group comprises elasmobranchs, eels, cat fish, silver bar fish, herrings,
anchovies, Mumbai duck, mackerels, perches, silverbellies, flat fishes, mullets, Indian
salmon, jew fish, crabs, shellfish, dorab, and mullets.

Cat-fishes, mullets, carps, prawns, murrels, feather backs, loaches, perches, eels, herrings,
and anchovies are among the freshwater fishes. Carps are the most prized species, with
species such as rohu, katla, mrigal, and calbaus that are well-known throughout India.

India has a coastline of roughly 6,100 kilometers. Numerous large and perennial rivers pour
sediment-laden water into an ocean with a continental shelf of 0.16 meters. The two arms of
the Indian Ocean and many gulfs and bays, creeks, as well as the extensive backwaters,

1
“Indian Fisheries- A Historical Alternative” (2005) <https://ccs.in/internship_papers/2005/13.%20indian
%20fisheries%20by%20Rohan.pdf> accessed October 2022.
estuaries, lagoons, and swamps along the entire coastline are rich in potential fishery
resources, occupying hectares in the form of a narrow belt from the shore to about 200 metre
line.

The four categories of fisheries resources are (1) marine, (2) freshwater, (3) estuarine, and (4)
pearl fisheries.

(1) Marine Fisheries:

In India's economy, marine capture fisheries play a vital role. The sector provides jobs and
income to approximately two million individuals. The marine fish production increased by
3.5% from 0.53 million tons in 1950-51 to 32 million tons in 2010-2011. Marine fisheries,
including coastal, offshore, and deep-sea fisheries, are the most significant source of fish in
India, accounting for around 55 percent of the total yearly production.

(2) Coastal Fisheries:

“The coastal zone, which is up to 25 meters deep and extends a few kilometers from the
shore, is the most intensive fishing zone in India, accounting for nearly all of the country's
marine fish production. This fishing belt has pelagic species such as sardines, mackerel, and
smaller sardines, as well as bottom species such as Bombay duck, silver bellies, and shrimp.
The majority of the remaining 35% is composed of tuna, bonitos, mackerels, crabs, sharks,
rays, skates, flounders, and halibuts.

Approximately 69% of India's total marine fish production is landed along the West Coast in
Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat, Goa, and Daman & Diu in that order. There are 60
million tonnes of potential bottom-dwelling fish and 20 million tonnes of potential pelagic
fish in the region.

The current catch is approximately 20 million tonnes. The East Coast accounts for around
28% of the nation's total annual output of marine fish, or 8-9 lakh tonnes, compared to a
possible 32 lakh tonnes, including 14 lakh tonnes of bottom fisheries and 18 lakh tonnes of
pelagic fisheries. Currently, the Indian islands have a modest amount of output.

In addition to the six major fishing harbours of Cochin, Sassoon Dock (Mumbai), Chennai,
Visakhapatnam, Roy chock (Calcutta), and Paradip, 28 minor fishing harbours and 113 fish
landing sites have been built to provide landing and berthing facilities for fishing vessels. In
all coastal states, a Brackish water Fish Growers Development Agency (BFDA) provides
technical, financial, and extension assistance to shrimp farmers in the brackish water zone.

India's west and east coasts have drastically different fisheries. Along the west coast, from
Ratnagiri to Kanya Kumari, fish are caught. It contributes more than 75 percent of the
nation's total sea fish landings.

Typically, the fishing season here lasts from September through February and stretches into
March. Due to the expansive continental shelf and oceanic nature of the water, this shore has
a higher fish productivity. In addition, the waters have a more marked seasonal cycle and
higher phosphate and nitrate concentrations, leading to a higher plankton productivity. Major
fisheries such as sardines, mackerel, and shrimp are virtually exclusively found on the west
coast.

On the east coast, Ganjam is the northernmost fishing location. On the Andhra coast, the
fishing season runs from July to October, and on the Coromandel coast, it runs from
September to April.

On this coast, water circulation is less pronounced. Over the Bay of Bengai, the north-east
monsoon winds are moderate and of shorter duration. Large rivers and coastal lakes, such as
the Chilka and the Pulicat, have facilitated the development of estuarine fisheries. In place of
sardines and mackerel, horse mackerels, clupeoids, and silver bellies predominate along this
coast's fishing grounds.”2

(3) Off Shore and Deep-Sea Fisheries:

Deep sea fishing consists of fishing for surface, mid-water, and bottom-dwelling species in
offshore and remote regions of the high seas.

Deep Sea Fishing Stations have been established in Mumbai, Kolkata, Cochin, Tuticorin, and
Vishakhapatnam with the assistance of the governments of Norway, Japan, and the United
States. These resources are exploited using power-driven vessels and highly mechanized
equipment, such as trawls.

Rawas (India Salmon), dara (giant thread-fin), ghol (Jew fish), koth, warn (sea eel), perches,
shark, karkara, pomfrets, catfishes, rays, silver- bellies, curangids, shende, and dhoma are the

2
“Research Paper on Fisheries Sector in India (4861 Words)” (World’s Largest Collection of Essays! Published
by Experts, June 20, 2013) <https://www.shareyouressays.com/research-essay/research-paper-on-fisheries-
sector-in-india-4861-words/120725> accessed October 2022.
most important commercial fishes in these waters. Off-shore and deep-sea fishing have not
been fully established in India and account for a minor portion of marine fish production.
However, initiatives are being conducted to utilize offshore and deep-sea fisheries within
India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

In order to locate fishing grounds in the offshore and deep-sea regions, marine resource
surveys have been intensified. From eleven major ports, exploratory and experimental fishing
is conducted, and three more bases are in the process of being established. The UNDP/FAO
Pelagic Fisheries Project has acquired a research vessel of 46,3 meters in length. In addition
to regular ship-based acoustic studies, an aerial survey has also been conducted.

(4) Freshwater or inland fisheries:

“Approximately 45 percent of the nation's total fish production comes from inland fisheries,
which include fresh water fisheries such as tanks and ponds, rivers, irrigation canals,
reservoirs, and freshwater lakes; and estuarine fisheries such as estuaries, delta channels,
back waters, lagoons, and coastal lakes.

Most of the fresh water fishing is done with hooks, lines, and other trapping methods, and
boats are only employed in large lakes and reservoirs. Small catamarans and dinghies are
predominantly employed in saltwater estuaries, delta channels, coastal lagoons, backwaters,
and lakes.

The total area of tanks and ponds in the country is estimated to be 20,2 million hectares, but
only 8 million hectares, or 37.50 percent, are utilized for pisciculture. In addition, the country
possesses 27,359 km of river length, 1,45,928 km of irrigation canal length, 21 lakh hectares
of reservoirs and small lakes, and 26 lakh hectares of brackish water around the coastlines.

The Fishery Survey of India (Mumbai), which is responsible for the survey and assessment of
marine fishery resources of the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), operates 12 ocean-
going survey vessels from bases in Porbandar, Mumbai, Mormugao, Cochin, Chennai,
Visakhapatnam, and Port Blair. These vessels are currently engaged in the survey of demersal
resources along both coasts and around the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.  

Also planned are two pelagic resources survey projects: one along the North-West Coast for
coastal tuna resources by purse-seining and the other along the Andhra Coast for pelagic
resources by midwater trawling. Under the oceanic resources survey program, surveys of the
tuna resources along the North-west Coast, North-east Coast, and Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, as well as the shark resources along the South-east Coast, were planned for two
separate projects. Efforts are also being made to estimate the resource distribution using
satellite remote sensing and sea truth data. In accordance with the Deep-Sea Fishing Policy of
1991, many vessels operating as joint ventures began operations in 1993.

Permission is now granted to 16 businesses for 61 deep sea fishing vessels, of which 18 are
operational. In general, species with non-predatory feeding behaviours are chosen for
cultivation in ponds, tanks, and reservoirs.

In brackish water estuary fisheries, marine species like as clupeoids, anchovies, catfishes,
perches, and pearl-spot are the two most significant species. Fresh water fisheries are the
backbone of inland fisheries and are conducted in rivers, canals, irrigation channels, tanks,
ponds, and lakes, among other bodies of water. The Ganga and Jamuna River systems in
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal; the Brahmaputra in Assam; the Mahanadi in Orissa,
etc. supply the majority of India's freshwater fish.”3

There are two sorts of freshwater fisheries: pond fisheries and riverine fisheries.

(a) The Pond's Fishing:

In India, there are no organized pond fisheries. Many rural tanks and domestic ponds,
especially in West Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, are filled with river-collected mixed fry. Pond
culture is also prevalent in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil
Nadu. Catla, rohita, kalabasu, bata, mringal, mullets, milk-fish, pearlshot, carp, etc. are
commonly supplied in ponds.

(b) Fishing in rivers:

Approximately one-third of India's total fish production is sourced from rivers. During the
winter months of October to March, when floods often subside, freshwater fishing is
extremely active in the larger rivers. Catla, kalabasu, tor, mringal, vacha, amabas, mullets,
feather backs, herring, hilsa, eels, and anchovies are the most important freshwater fisheries.

West Bengal is the greatest producer of fresh water fish in India, accounting for roughly 29
percent of the country's total fresh water fish production. Bihar and Assam hold the second
and third spots, respectively. West Bengal, Bihar, and Assam account for about 72% of all
freshwater fish sold commercially in India.

3
ibid
The country's Inland Fisheries resources span 29 thousand kilometers., 30 million hectares of
reservoirs, 15 million hectares of tanks and ponds, and 14 million hectares of brackish water
wetlands.

(5) Estuarine Fisheries:

Along the whole coastline, these fisheries are restricted to estuaries, backwaters, tidal
estuaries, lagoons, flooded areas, and swamps. In the estuarine areas of the rivers Ganga,
Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery, Narmada, and Tapti; the brackish water lakes of
Chilka and Pulicate; and the backwaters of Kerala, estuarine fisheries are prominent.

Indian estuarine fisheries are comprised primarily of marine species that can resist salinity
fluctuations. Hilsa, milk fish, anchovies, mullets, cat fishes, perches, gouramy, and pearlshot
are among the most important. These are noted as edible.

Important catches include prawns, mullets, and chromides from the Malabar embanked
brackish water fisheries established in the low-lying rice fields known as pakkali fields.

The Chilka Lake is a shallow, open body of brackish water. Important catches are catla, rohu,
mullet, bekti, etc. On an area of around 5,800 square kilometers, the Sunderbans' numerous
perennial canals, ponds, marshy bils, ox-bow lakes, and rivers give ample opportunities for
estuary fishing. Due to a lack of speedy transport facilities, many miles are underutilized.

(6) Pearl Fisheries:

Oysters that produce pearls are extremely valuable. At a depth of 18 to 22 meters and a
distance of 19 kilometers, these are typically located on the ridges of rocks or dead corals
forming large pearl banks. from the coasts The pearl-oysters on the east coast are larger and
more productive than those of the west coast. They range from Cape Comorin to Kilkarai,
with the most productive region being the center zone near Tuticorin.

These beds produce oriental pearls or lingha pearls of superior quality. On the western coast,
pearl-oysters are fished in the Arabian Sea near the Kathiawar peninsula and in the Gulf of
Kutch, both of which are rich in oyster beds that produce high-quality pearls. In India, the
Gulf of Manaar, Gulf of Kutch, and Palk Bay are the most important pearl fishing locations.

In South India, pearl-oysters are gathered by divers, whereas in Kutch and Saurashtra, they
are exposed during low-tide spring tides and can be collected by hand. State governments
have jurisdiction and management over the pearl beds.
THE ACTS:

Indian fisheries act 1897

On February 4, 1897, the Governor-General of India gave his approval to this historic
measure. The act was enacted as a supplemental act that was intended to serve as a
foundation for all future state fisheries legislation, tailored to each region. Reading the statute
reveals information that is somewhat exceptional in relation to the current fishing regulations.
The Act's simplicity eliminates all types of ambiguity and imposes little restrictions on the
fishing masses.

1) Private Waters

“Private water is defined as water that is the exclusive property of a person or in which a
person has an exclusive fishing right, whether as owner, lessee, or in another capacity.

Explanation: Water shall not cease to be private water for the purposes of this definition
solely because others may have a customary right to fish in it.”4

Considering the government's omnipotent control over the nation's marine resources, the
notion of fisheries in its current context would not even recognize the term private water as a
genuine concept. In addition, it mentions fishing by tradition and indicates that private water
ownership can trump this customary right to fish.

2) Imposition of Rules

The local government may also, through a similar notification, apply these rules or any of
them to any private water with the written approval of the owner and of all people enjoying
an exclusive right to fish in such water at the time. The unambiguous mention of the word
consent always elicits a very intriguing reaction from most people, and the fact that any
restriction could be enacted only with the agreement of the fishing parties demonstrates the
emphasis the authorities put on the fishermen's decisions.

3) Licenses

The words license and registration do not appear anywhere in the text of the Act. In all the
Indian Marine Fishing Regulation Acts of the late 20th century, the word license is included
explicitly, and there is a clear framework for gaining permits and registering vessels. This is
quite interesting.
4
Section 3 (3), The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897.
Inexplicably, these statutes make no mention of the phrase license, so implying the attitude of
the competent authorities, which astonishingly appears to favor limited government
participation. We can only assume that the concerned authorities deemed it unnecessary to
overtly interfere with the existing system of private and customary fisheries, and as a result,
this Act was passed, which merely established a framework for large-scale offenses with the
potential to cause explosions and water contamination.

Other acts, such as the Private fisheries protection act of 1889 and the Hyderabad fisheries act
of 1356 F (1947), were also enacted.

Marine Fishery Legislation in the Maritime States of India:

India comprises ten marine states and union territories: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka,
Goa, and Kerala border the Arabian Sea on the west coast, while Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry,
Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal border the Bay of Bengal on the east coast. The
two island union territories, namely Bermuda and Cayman Islands The Andaman and
Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep are in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, respectively.
Since the 1960s, the introduction of small automated boats of 9 to 10 m has spread fast, and
there are currently over 53,000 such vessels operating in the inshore region, primarily for
bottom trawling, gill netting, and purse-seining. In the 1970s, purse-seining for pelagic
shoaling species such as mackerel and sardines was introduced. In this context, the 10th
Meeting of the Central Board of Fisheries, which was convened in New Delhi on 22-23
March 1976, acknowledged the scope and feasibility of safeguarding the interests of
traditional fishermen. In May 1976, based on its suggestions, the Central Government
established a commission to examine the questions of delimiting the fishing grounds for
different types of boats. In its December 1978 report, the Committee included a sample
Marine Fisheries Regulations Bill. In 1979, the model law was distributed to all marine states
and union territories for the enactment of appropriate legislation. Various state governments
have established regulations for the management and protection of fisheries under the Indian
Fisheries Act of 1897. The following regulations pertain to Indian maritime fisheries:

 “The Indian Fisheries Act, No. IV of 1897, Indian Government

 The Indian Fisheries Act as adopted and applied by the State of Saurashtra, 1897
 The Mysore Game and Fish Preservation Act 2 of 1901, Government of Mysore
  The Game and Fish Protection Regulation Act 12 of 1914, Government of Travancore
(1914) (modified 1921)
 Government of Cochin Fisheries Act 3 of 1917 (amended 1921)
 Andaman and Nicobar Islands Fisheries Regulation 1 of 1938
 The United Provinces Fisheries Act 45 of 1948
 Government of Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act 34 of 1950
 The Maharashtra Fisheries Act 1960 (modified 1962), Government of Maharashtra
 The Indian Fisheries (Pondicherry Amendment) Act 18 of 1965”5 etc;

In territorial seas, the Marine Fishing Regulation Acts (MFRAs) regulate fishing and
conservation efforts. These include the limitation of mesh size to prevent the capture of
immature fish, the minimum and maximum sizes of fish, the regulation of gear to prevent the
overexploitation of certain species, the reservation of zones for traditional fishermen, and the
proclamation of closed seasons. These Acts establish fishing zones for non-mechanized and
mechanized fishing vessels in territorial seas. The designated distance from the shore for each
category varies by state. 5 to 10 kilometres are often designated for artisanal (non-
mechanized) vessels. Kerala and Goa were the first states to pass the Marine Fisheries Act in
1980, followed by Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and West Bengal (1994).
Lakshadweep did so in 2000. In 2003, Gujarat and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands passed
the Act. In contrast to the regulations of fishing zones stipulated in the Acts, the decision on
seasonal closure is typically made annually prior to or during the start of the southwest
monsoon. According to a recent order issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy
and Fisheries, Government of India, dated March 9, 2011, a uniform ban on fishing by all
fishing vessels in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beyond territorial waters on the
East Coast, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and the West Coast, including
Lakshadweep, has been imposed for the conservation and effective management of fishing
resources, as well as for reasons of sea safety. A standard seasonal closure of 47 days is in
effect from 15th April to 31st May along the east coast, and from 15th June to 31st July along
the west coast.

The Maritime Zones of India (Regulations on foreign vessel fishing) Act of 1981

This act was enacted to regulate the activities of foreign fishing vessels operating within the
Indian Maritime Zone. The Act lays the groundwork for collaborative ventures, chartered

5
“Fisheries Legislation in India” <http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9871/1/Rajesh_8.pdf> accessed October 2022.
vessels, and bilateral/multilateral fishing access agreements. If any foreign vessel is utilized
in violation of section 3 of the Act in any area within the territorial waters of India, the
violators are subject to imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to fifteen lakh
rupees, or both. “If such a violation occurs within the exclusive economic zone of India, a
fine of not more than 10 lakh rupees shall be imposed. The maximum fine for violating a
license is ten lakhs of rupees. The maximum fine for violating a permit pertaining to the
region of operation or type of fishing stated in such a permit is rupees five lakhs, and rupees
fifty thousand in all other situations.”6 If any person intentionally obstructs any authorized
officer in the exercise of any powers conferred under this Act or fails to afford reasonable
facilities to the authorized officer or fails to stop the vessel or produce the license permit, log
book or other document or any fish, fishing gear or other equipment on board the vessel when
requested to do so, that person shall be punished by imprisonment for a term which may not
exceed one year or by fine.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

It enables the Central Government to safeguard and improve environmental quality, control
and decrease pollution from all sources, and prohibit or restrict the establishment or operation
of any industrial facility based on environmental considerations. It also makes Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) mandatory for specified development activities. In addition, public
hearings are mandated for all development projects requiring Ministry of Environment
environmental clearance. Under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) 1991 notification was issued. It describes a zoning
concept for regulating development within a predetermined coastal region. It designates as
the CRZ the portion of the coastline influenced by tidal action on the landward side up to 500
meters from the high tide line (HTL) and the land between the low tide line (LTL) and the
HTL. It restricts the establishment and extension of industries, operations, and processes, etc.,
in the designated CRZ. “The CRZ has been divided into four categories for the regulation of
developmental activities. The CRZ-I includes ecologically sensitive and significant areas,
such as national ponds/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserved forests, wild life habitats,
mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas close to the breeding and spawning grounds of fish and
other marine life, and areas with high genetic diversity. Also included in the CRZ-I is the area
between the Low Tide Line and the High Tide Line. The CRZ-II consists of regions that have
been developed up to or near the shoreline. The CRZ-III covers reasonably untouched areas
6
Ibid
and those that do not belong to CRZ-I or CRZ-II. These will comprise undeveloped and
developed coastal zones in rural areas, as well as undeveloped urban areas within municipal
limits or other legally recognized urban districts. The CRZ-IV comprises Andaman and
Nicobar, Lakshadweep, and tiny islands, excluding those designated as CRZ-I, CRZ-II, and
CRZ-III.”7

New Deep Sea Fishing Policy, 1991

As part of its economic reforms program, the Indian government launched the New Deep Sea
Fishing Policy (NDSP) in March 1991. The policy included three schemes: (1) the leasing of
foreign fishing vessels to operate in the Indian EEZ; (2) the engagement of foreign fishing
vessels for test fishing; and (3) the formation of joint ventures between foreign companies
and Indian companies on a 49:51 equity basis for deep sea fishing, processing, and
marketing. The Indian government has begun issuing licenses for joint venture, lease, and test
fishing vessels. The policy was met with criticism from artisanal fishermen.

Murari Committee, 1995

The Murari Committee was established with 41 members, including bureaucrats, experts,
activists, and fishing community representatives. It was divided into five groups and traveled
to all coastal states in order to get feedback from various sectors of the Fisheries Sector. All
five groups unanimously suggested revising the deep-sea fishing policy and revoking all
licenses issued to foreign vessels. The group made 21 suggestions, the most significant being:

 “Future license renewals, extensions, and new permits shall not be awarded to joint
venture, charter, lease, or test fishing vessels.
 The current licenses shall be revoked in accordance with the applicable legal
procedures.Enhance the abilities of the fishing community so that they can exploit the
deep sea's resources.
 halt pollution
 Fuel distribution at subsidized rates
 Fishing laws across the EEZ
 A separate ministry responsible for all fisheries.
 Monsoon trawl ban”8
7
“Environmental Protection Act | Environment and Natural Resources” (Environmental Protection Act |
Environment and Natural Resources) <https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/environmental-protection-act> accessed
October 2022.
8
Supra note 5
The area currently being exploited or which may be exploited in the medium term by
fishermen operating traditional craft or mechanized vessels less than 20 meters in length
should not be allowed to be exploited by vessels longer than 20 meters, with the exception of
currently operated Indian vessels, which may operate in the current areas for a maximum of
three years.

In September 1997, the Central Government adopted all of the committee's

recommendations. A small committee from the National Fisheries Action Committee against
Foreign Fishing Vessels was appointed by the Minister of Food Processing Industry to
oversee the execution of Murari Committee recommendations.

Broad Guidelines for the Operation of Indian Deep-Sea Fishing Vessels in Indian EEZ

Permission in writing (LOP) is required from the nodal ministry for operating any fishing
vessel in Indian EEZ. Currently, permission is only granted for I long lining for tuna; “(ii)
tuna purse seining; (iii) squid jigging and squid hand lining; and (v) mid-water/ pelagic
trawling and (v) trap fishing.”9 The operational area of deep-sea fishing vessels would be
governed by instructions/orders periodically issued by the Indian government. All deep-sea
fishing vessel operators are required to report their vessel's position, intended course and
speed, area of operation, and latitude and longitude to the Coast Guard daily at 8:00 a.m. or at
any other time specified by the authority in order to ensure the proper monitoring of the
operations of Indian deep-sea fishing vessels and maritime safety. Before each departure, the
Coast Guard and Fisheries Survey of India in Mumbai must receive the voyage's start date,
duration, and crew roster. The accomplishment of each expedition must be communicated to
these agencies upon return. The operator must provide an undertaking that (a) they will not
engage in any type of fishing other than what has been authorized, (b) the company will not
exploit any endangered species of marine turtles, mammals, or fish species, and the vessel
will not engage in bottom trawling, pair trawling, or bull trawling, and (c) they will not
violate the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). The operator must obtain
permission from the government before assigning foreign crew

Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The primary objective of the Act is to protect India's biological diversity. The Act provides
for the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair
and equitable distribution of benefits accruing from the use of biological resources,
9
ibid
knowledge, and related matters. Provision is made for the establishment of National and State
Biodiversity Boards. The Act promotes conservation and includes a provision for declaring a
fish stock endangered if it is overfished.

The Marine Fishing Policy, 2004

In the past decade, the Ministry of Agriculture has paid close attention to the growth of deep-
sea fishing in the country. Government addressed this issue in its 1981 Charter Policy after
realizing that most deep-sea fishery resources are beyond the conventional fishing limit and
fishing capability of indigenous craft and can only be exploited profitably with the
introduction of upgraded and sophisticated vessels of adequate size and capabilities. In 1982,
the Central Government established the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by
Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 and its implementing rules in response to the adoption of the
Charter Policy in 1981, which authorized foreign fishing vessels to fish in the Indian EEZ.
This law's enforcement is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture.

After the Charter Policy of 1981, the government periodically took steps to allow Indian
corporations to acquire fishing vessels. After this program had been in effect for five years,
the government amended it to address flaws discovered during its operation and make it more
advantageous for the country. Consequently, a revised charter policy for 1986 was
announced. “The charter policy anticipated the purchase of the Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute R.C. Mangalore 48 vessels by Indian companies by import, construction in
India, joint venture, etc. Due to the above, 97 firms were granted permission to operate 311
foreign fishing vessels. After establishing the framework for the Indian deep sea fishing
industry in 1991, the government went on to broaden the initiative's scope.”10

The New Deep Sea Policy of 1991 authorized Indian enterprises to form Joint Ventures with
foreign fishing organizations and acquire fishing vessels flying the Indian flag for use in the
Indian EEZ. Other conservation measures include the implementation of closed seasons, a
ban on destructive fishing methods, and mesh size regulations. Legislation is also envisioned
to prevent the capture of juveniles and non-targeted species, as well as the release of
undesirable species once they have been captured. Observers would be stationed on
commercial fishing vessels to enforce the monitoring, control, and surveillance system
(MCS). Important components of the resource augmentation program would include the
production of seeds for sea ranching, the identification of certain regions as marine
10
FAO.Org :” (FAO.org :) <https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC163860/> accessed
October 2022.
sanctuaries, and the regulation of the capture of brood stock in these areas. The cultivation of
fish in open-sea cages and the use of fish aggregation devices are two additional crucial areas
of resource management.

The approach emphasizes ensuring the socioeconomic stability of fisherman. Artisanal

fisheries employing outboard motors (OBMs) and small mechanized boats up to 12 meters
would be classified similarly to agriculture, whereas small scale fisheries employing
mechanized boats with a registered length of less than 20 meters would be treated similarly to
small scale enterprises. Fishing activity involving mother ships or factory vessels and fishing
vessels longer than 20 meters would be considered industrial activity.

In addition, full-time, occasional fisherman whose households do not own a boat would be
classified the same as landless laborers and be eligible for special care and protection. Other
components of fisherman welfare projects include a housing scheme, a greater emphasis by
financial institutions, and enhanced safety on the high seas. The maritime fishing policy of
2004 also specifies the development of fisheries in Lakshadweep and the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, which are Union Territories.

Marine Fisheries (Regulation and Management) Bill, 2009

The Union Government proposes to bring fishing vessels of Indian origin in the Indian EEZ,
along with other categories, under the Marine Fisheries (Regulation and Management) Bill
2009, a common legal framework for the regulation of fisheries, conservation, and
sustainable use of fishery resources in all maritime zones, including territorial waters. The
territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles from the base line), contiguous zone (up to 24
nautical miles from the base line), EEZ (up to 200 nautical miles from the base line), and
continental shelf are included in the scope of the proposed Bill 2009. (Can be up to 350
nautical miles from the base line).

It intends to include Indian fishing vessels built in India, owners of such vessels, fisheries and
fishworkers on board these vessels, and their operations, particularly in the EEZ. Fisheries in
territorial seas are a state responsibility, whilst those in other areas are a Union responsibility.
State Fisheries Departments are authorized under marine fishing regulation statutes and/or
guidelines to regulate fishing in territorial seas (based on a model bill prepared by the Central
Government). In the EEZ, Indian citizens are permitted to fish with relative freedom.
“The Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act of 1981 and
the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Rules, 1982 are
intended to regulate foreign fishing vessels in the Indian EEZ that are owned and/or operated
by Indian citizens and/or foreign nations. Consequently, there is a legal void in relation to the
regulation of Indian fishing vessels of Indian construction in the EEZ, with no legal
responsibility or accountability other than the requirement to adhere to the seasonal monsoon
ban and the prohibition on taking certain endangered or protected species under the 1972
wildlife (Protection) Act. This Bill appears to be proposed primarily to bring all Indian and
foreign vessels and related interests in the EEZ under a legal mechanism to meet India's
obligations under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1995
United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as to incorporate pertinent sections from the
1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.”11

Case law examples:

Papanasanam Fishermen vs The Collector

Facts:

“The fee for the fishing rights is Rs. 58,795. In WA 340 of 1973, dated August 27, 1973, the
Collector of Thanjavur notified the appellant that the Society had failed to pay Rs 33,085.
Whether an offer would be made for the 1973-1974 fishing license. It then submitted an offer
on September 7, 1973, and a license was subsequently granted. The offered and accepted sum
was Rs. 64,650, of which, under the terms, the offeror was required to deposit Rs. The next
day after a lease was approved on September 10, 1973, it was executed. The appellant asserts
that, prior to using its fishing rights, it expended an additional Rs. 1,500. By a memorandum
dated 12 October 1973, the Government directed the Collector to suspend the grant to the
appellant, which he did on 16 October 1973. Then, on 22 October 1973, the government
issued another Memorandum instructing the Collector to revoke the lease and transfer fishing
rights to the third respondent-society. The government, in issuing the aforementioned
directive, took care to note that the Collector could carry out the action only after issuing an
explanation notice to the appellant. However, given the circumstances. Clearly, this portion
of the instruction was a pretense or a show of adherence to the principles of natural justice.

11
“Kerala Wants Centre to Review Proposed Marine Fisheries Bill - The Hindu” (Kerala wants Centre to review
proposed Marine Fisheries Bill - The Hindu, October 8, 2009)
<https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/Kerala-wants-Centre-to-review-proposed-Marine-Fisheries-
Bill/article16885513.ece> accessed October 2022.
The Collector issued an order to show cause to the appellant, requesting that it justify its
authority to engage into a contract to operate fishing rights outside the boundaries of
Thiruthuraipundi taluk. The appellant submitted an explanation on November 1, 1973. After
four days, the Collector terminated the lease. In reaching this conclusion, he merely stated
that the appellant's explanation was insufficient.”12

Issue:

Whether the order issued by Collector a valid one

Reasoning:

The Indian Fisheries Act of 1997 regulates various aspects of fisheries. It features a section
on definitions. By S. The rules of the state government provide for the conservation of fish in
particular waters. Sub-S. 1 of S. 6 stipulates that the State Government may enact rules for
the purposes outlined in the section and may, by announcement in the Official Gazette, apply
all or any of these rules to such non-private waters as the State Government may specify in
said notification.

In accordance with this rule-making authority, the State Government enacted the Tamil Nadu
Inland Fisheries (Lease and Licence) Rules of 1972 R. 2 addresses the prohibition on fishing
in waters governed by the Fisheries Department without a lease or license. The rule states that
no person may take fish from the waters specified in Annexure I without a lease or license
granted by the government or by an authority authorized by the government in the form and
under the conditions specified in the appendix to Annexure I of these rules, which may be
modified or amended as necessary. Annexure 1, by Cl. 1, identifies the Cauvery and
Coleroon, as well as the branches of the Cauvery and irrigation canals of the Cauvery and
Coleroon rivers in Thanjavur and adjacent areas, as those within the purview of R. 2.
Therefore, it is evident that when the Collector issued the license to the appellant, he
complied with S. 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act and the above-mentioned regulations. In other
words, his authority to act in this manner can be traced to the statute and is thus statutory
authority. Then, when the authority is governed by the provisions of the Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder, even the lease's terms and conditions would be traceable to the
statutory authority. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that the appellant's fishing

12
Papanasanam Fishermen vs The Collector AIR 1975 Mad 81
rights under the Collector's grant and subject to its terms derive from the contractual
relationship alone.

Since it is obvious that the collector can issue such an order, the question arose as to whether
he properly reviewed the reasoning that was provided after the show cause notice. The court
concluded that the principles of natural justice were not observed and ordered the collector to
reconsider the matter within three weeks of the challenged order.

Jalla Seshaiah and others vs Moka Venkateswarlu and others

Facts:

“Between kruthivennu and nidamarru panchayats in bantumilli taluk in krishna district is an

intertidal wetland with an outlet to the sea. A huge number of local fisherman subsisted by
fishing in the marsh region. In accordance with the Indian Fisheries Act, Act IV of 1897, the
fisheries department issued permits to fishermen for fishing with various types of nets. The
licenses were sought as permission to fish in the interu marsh area outlined in condition no. I
of the permit form. The fishing method is also specified on the license. From 1985 onwards,
the panchayat board of kruthivennu, one of the wealthiest villages in the area, began asserting
its rights and put forth the theory that the interu swamp lies within the boundaries of
kruthivennu panchayat and is therefore vested in the panchayat u/ s. 85, and the government
began giving fishing rights leases. Then, issues emerged, litigation arose, and criminal
charges also arose. Considering these contradictory arguments, the petitioners for this
revision filed o. S. No. 47/90, and they also submitted i. A. No. 324/90 for temporary
injunction pending the outcome of the lawsuit. The petitioners are urlagonditippa residents.
They are traditional fisherman who fish in the x-1.x-2, x-3, and x - 4 region, which is part of
the mouth going to the Bay of Bengal from the swamp. They were fishing by constructing
stakenets. Their current lawsuit and claim are intended to protect their rights in the region.”13

Issue:

“(1) Whether the Interu Swamp and the Plaint Schedule Area at the Mouth of the Swamp
meet the statutory definition of "wetland." 2 (32) "water course" and whether it is an item that
the gram panchayat u/s has jurisdiction over. 85?

13
Jalla Seshaiah and others vs Moka Venkateswarlu and others AIR 1991 AP 343
(2) Whether the fisheries act of 1897 continues to apply to interu - swamp and the plaint
schedule area despite the enactment of the gram panchayats act, with respect to interu
swamp?”14

Reasoning:

Since the petitioners have been conducting fishing operations under licenses issued by the
fisheries department for several years, the balance of convenience is in their favor. First,
beginning in 1985, kruthivennu panchayat made efforts to bring interu swamp under its
hegemony and began granting leases to fisher men who are residents of pallipalem and who
had formed a cooperative society with the imposing name sri nageswara matsya parisrmika
sahakara sangham.

In the orders of the lower court, reference was made to the criminal cases. However, the
findings in the criminal case have absolutely no bearing on the controversy in this case. The
respondents' acquittal cannot grant them rights that they do not already possess. The legal
stance must be observed.

The court urged the district munsif to dispose of the matter expeditiously and set aside the
district judge's order since this litigation impacts the livelihood of a significant number of
fishermen and there is a likelihood of numerous disputes developing. The court reinstated the
district magistrate's injunction.

Ferozabad new Bharat Fish Farming Co-Operative society ltd vs State of Haryana

Facts:

“In accordance with the authority granted by Section 3 of the Punjab Fisheries Act, 1914 and
Section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, the Government of Haryana issued a notification
on 24.5.1996 establishing the Haryana Fisheries Rules, 1996. According to these regulations,
various zones have been established to regulate fishing in the State's public works. Hissar,
Fatehabad, and Sirsa constitute the relevant zone in the present writ petition. Every year,
fishing rights are allocated by a public auction held on or after July 1st. The rules stipulate
that no person may participate in the public auction unless the specified amount of earnest
money has been deposited in cash with the auction authority. If the highest bid is submitted
by someone other than a fisherman cooperative society, it can only be accepted if it is at least
10 percent higher than the highest bid submitted by a fisherman cooperative society, if any.
14
ibid
In addition, the rules stipulate that the aue tioning authority may not accept the highest bid or
the bid of the Fisherman Cooperative Society if the highest bid is less than the average
contract amount received over the previous three years; in this case, the fishing rights must be
re-auctioned.

So, in accordance with these rules, the conditions lead to a re-auction, which is won by
kanwar pal, who failed to deposit the winnings, resulting in yet another auction. This
auction's earnest money was increased from $10,000 to $50,000 and was won by respondent
4. This case is being brought against the acceptance of the bid.

The petitioner society asserts that it deposited Rs. 50,000/- in earnest money through its
chairman, Sh. Shish Pal Kamboj, who participated in the auction and submitted a bid of Rs.
3,12,000/-, won the property. In addition, it is asserted that he was asked to produce the
authorization letter at the time of the auction, which he did not produce. However, it is said
that he pointed out that the appropriate resolution and authority letter had been filed by him in
the earlier auction held on 17.8.2000, and that it was thus unnecessary to insist on the
production of the authority letter again in the subsequent auction held on 7.9.2000. Moreover,
it is alleged that Shishpal was not permitted to place any additional bids in this auction. Thus,
according to the petitioner, its participation in the bid was unlawfully prevented.”15

Issue:

In accordance with the Indian Fisheries Act, was the Respondent's bid legally accepted and
valid?

Reasoning:

It has been noted that despite extensive advertising and several auctions and re-auctions, no
bids exceeding the average amount of contract money collected over the previous three years
were submitted. According to the responders, this was due to limited rainfall and insufficient
water flow in these districts. This caused inadequate fish migration in the Ghagar Course.
Even though a bid of Rs. 5 lakhs were accepted at the re-auction held on 17.8.2000, the
winning bidder elected to forfeit his earnest money rather than honour the bid. It
consequently was. said that the auctioning authority was acting in the State's best interest.

15
Ferozabad new Bharat Fish Farming Co-Operative society ltd vs State of Haryana Punjab & Haryana High
Court
The bid of Rs. 3,540,000/- was accepted from respondent No. 4. The defendants further
refuted the petitioner's contention that it had placed Rs. 50,000/- in earnest money and that its
Chairman Shishpal had been prohibited from participating in the auction. On 7.9.2000,
Shishpal initially deposited Rs. 50,000/- in earnest money on behalf of the society, and the
appropriate entry was made in the register. However, after submitting the entry, he was
requested to present a letter of authority, which he was unable to do. As a result, he consented
to participate in the auction in his private capacity. Therefore, the name of the company was
removed from the register and replaced with his name. In addition, it was asserted that the
fact that this correction was made with his consent prior to the auction's start is also evident
from the auction sheet, which contains only Shishpal's name. This document contains no
reference of the name of the petitioning organization. Even the petitioner's allegation that it
had provided a copy of the resolution and authority letter in favor of Shishpal at the auction
held on 17.8.2000 was shown to be factually incorrect. Likewise, no such paperwork had
been submitted for this auction. 5. The counsel for respondent No. 4 has reiterated the
arguments made by the official respondents. In addition, he stated that, due to the stay
operating against him in the current litigation, he was incurring daily losses as the fishing
season passed. According to him, the present case represents a futile effort on the part of the
petitioner, who was neither willing to execute the bid at Rs. 3,540,000/- nor willing to permit
respondent No. 4 to do so.

“However, the register also indicates that the petitioner's society was dissolved and Shishpal
was incorporated in its place. As there is no mention of the Society on the auction sheet,
Shishpal participated in his personal capacity when he placed bids. The bid sheet, unlike the
register for receipt of earnest money, does not indicate that the name of the petitioner society
was initially inserted and then removed. Therefore, it has been correctly stated that Shishpal
only participated in the auction on September 7, 2000 in his personal capacity. If Shishpal
was prevented from participating in the auction on behalf of the petitioner society, it could
not be explained how he could place even a single bid. It is a matter of record that he
submitted a bid of Rs. 3,12,000/-, which was recorded on the auction sheet in his name. This
indicates that he participated in his individual capacity. The respondents have also properly
pointed out that the petitioner did not submit a resolution or authorization letter for the
auction held on August 17, 2000.”16 Thus, the petitioner's assertion that the authorization

16
ibid
letter was provided is false. In light of these circumstantial evidence, the Court dismissed the
appeal with no costs assessed.

KK Ramesh vs Government of India

Facts:

In the present case, KK Ramesh filed a PIL under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for
the issuance of a mandamus. Four Indian fisherman were killed by the Sri Lankan navy on
January 18, 2021, after straying into Sri Lankan waters or beyond the international maritime
boundary line. This case was brought before the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court as
a result of this occurrence.

Issue:

The PIL aimed to obtain specific claims from the court. These are the following:

1. “To arrest and cease the accused Sri Lankan naval personnel and their naval boat who
killed 4 Indian fishermen on 18.01.2021.
2. To get compensation from the Sri Lankan Government to the families of 4 murdered
Indian fishermen.
3. To take adequate steps to protect the Tamil Nadu fishermen and their properties from
the Sri Lankan Navy (such as boats and nets).”17

Reasoning:

The Madurai bench led by Justice Sanjib Bannerjee and Justice R Hemalatha acknowledged
the plight of Indian fishermen and urged the government to take protective measures. Without
being jingoistic, the Court urged the Indian government to attempt to encourage Sri Lankan
authorities to refrain from applying severe punishments against Indian fishermen who
mistakenly cross the maritime difference. The governments should achieve a consensus so
that the fishermen do not suffer as a result of the war. In addition, the Court directed the
Indian government to refrain from taking harsh measures against Sri Lankan fishermen who
cross the IMBL without being aware of it, even if they have the authorization to do so.

The Court acknowledged the necessity of educating fishermen about maritime borders. In
addition, the Court noted that, if necessary, devices should be installed in the boats to allow
fisherman to trace the borders and prevent unintentional overstepping. Since the IMBL is

17
K.K.Ramesh vs The Government Of India Madras High Court
geo-tagged, the fishermen will be able to pinpoint the exact location of the borders with the
proper equipment.

The central government responded that several efforts had been made to enhance diplomatic
relations between the two nations. In addition, it was noted that a joint working group on
fisheries from India and Sri Lanka convened on 30 December 2020 to address the matter. The
Court finally dismissed the PIL without interfering with the functioning of the Sri Lankan
government or issuing any other ruling.
CONCLUSION

To accomplish the district's projected fish production, it is currently necessary to take a

comprehensive approach to selecting strategic choices and defining the role of various
stakeholders. Fish as a farm product in the district is more significant for business or
enterprise growth to offer job solution among rural youths in the district. Nutritional security
from fish is not a big worry in the district as annual per capita fish consumption is rather
high, aside the fact that it is also supplemented with pulses, meat, eggs. In addition to its high
protein content, fish is also rich in micronutrients and some species have therapeutic
characteristics. The rising population and affluence of consumers, as well as the rising
demand for fish in the district, suggested an immediate need for strategic intervention.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Fisheries Legislation in India written by Rajesh K.M

2. Indian Fisheries written by Rohan Dominic Mathews

3. Fisheries Sector in India is an article written by Pragati ghost

Case laws:

1. Papanasanam Fishermen vs The Collector

2. Jalla Seshaiah and others vs Moka Venkateswarlu and others

3. Ferozabad new Bharat Fish Farming Co-Operative society ltd vs State of Haryana

4. KK Ramesh vs Government of India