Author: Aditya Gonapa, A Student at Nalsar University of Law
Abstract
This Article focuses on the Katchatheevu Islands which has been a subject of contention between India and Srilanka since the 1970s and the two important agreements determining the maritime boundary between them regarding its ownership and its impact on the livelihood of fishermen on both sides exploring possible solutions by the two countries to resolve the issue at the earliest.
“The Sri Lankan Navy has held 62 Indian fishing boats and 462 Indian fishermen in island waters thus far in 2024 and handed them over to authorities for legal action”.
“Earlier on December 4, 2024, 14 fishermen from Rameshwaram jetty in two trawlers were held by the Sri Lankan Navy on similar charges”.
Above are a few instances reported by the Hindu of a contentious issue that India has been facing since the 1970s which eventually got intensified from the 2000s and there were solemn commitments made in the Indian parliament that the fishing rights of Indian fishermen would be protected. Now hitting the bull’s eye, the story starts in the early 1920s when Katchatheevu Islands, a 285-acre uninhabited land, which also stands as a huge fishing space for fishermen from both the countries India and Srilanka where both the countries are at loggerheads claiming its ownership at both ends. In 1974, the India-Srilanka Maritime Boundary Agreement was signed between the two countries with India under the leadership of the then Indira Gandhi-led Congress government. India recognized that Katchatheevu falls in the Srilankan Sovereign Territory.
Article 5 of the 1974 Agreement reads as follows ‘Subject to the foregoing, Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Katchatheevu as hitherto, and will not be required by Srilanka to obtain travel documents or visas for these purposes’.
Article 6 of the same agreement says ‘The Vessels of India and Srilanka will enjoy each other waters as they have traditionally enjoyed therein’.
Another agreement, signed between the foreign secretaries of both countries in 1976 defined India’s maritime boundary with Srilanka as it was a precondition for India to ratify the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.
Article 5(2) of the 1976 agreement said-‘Each party shall have sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone as well as over their resources whether living or non-living, falling on its side of the aforesaid territory’.
Article 5(3) of the agreement states- ‘Each party shall respect the rights of navigation through its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in accordance with its laws and regulations and the rules of international law’.
The 1976 agreement is a contentious one as it wiped out the rights of Indian fishermen that the previous agreement had granted, most of the fishermen in Tamil Nadu especially the ones close to Kanyakumari, Danushkodi, and the ones who are close to Palk Bay region were unaware of the agreements or what exactly was discussed in those agreements and tend to go into the sea to earn bread, were and are being arrested by the Srilankan Navy and also the maritime boundary line that separates the two countries is not clearly defined under the agreements or they are subject to various interpretations leading to increased ambiguousness and the lack of training among the navy personnel of both the countries regarding this issue are contributing to increased arrests, detentions and even deaths of many poor and innocent fishermen of both the sides affecting their livelihoods and also derailing the relations between India and Srilanka.
In 2011, Jayalalitha, the then chief minister of Tamil Nadu moved to the Apex Court stating that the agreements were unconstitutional as they involved the ceding of Indian territory without them being ratified by the parliament as it should be as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1960 Berubari Case which requires an amendment in the Indian Constitution under Article 368.
In an RTI reply dated 27 January 2015, the central government stated that ‘this did not involve either acquiring or ceding of territory belonging to India since the area in question had never been demarcated’ which explicitly overturns Jayalalitha’s argument.
In the political arena, this issue is being repeatedly mentioned in the manifestos of Tamil political parties, which claim the vote bank of fishermen during elections, although there has been no substantial or satisfactory progress on the issue.
One possible solution for both the state and the union governments to explore is to arrange for alternative job opportunities for the fishermen as part of their fisheries management projects and give them subsidies on essential food items and also generic versions of expensive medicines including scholarships for meritorious students in government schools and colleges and the other solutions include organising frequent bilateral talks between the representatives of both the countries for dealing on the fisheries issue, though there had been talks between civil society organizations of fishermen on both the sides from 2008-10, no progress could be seen, and ensuring that the discussed solutions are effectively implemented.
FAQS
What is the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea? Is it binding on the countries ratifying it?
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is an International Treaty that established a legal framework for activities in the high seas and it was adopted in 1982 and came into force in 1994 which covers a range of activities including sustainable conservation and management of marine resources, management of exclusive economic zone amongst various other things concerning the waters.
Certain Articles within UNCLOS make it obligatory on part of states to define their maritime boundary, for example, Article 3 of the convention establishes the right of every state to determine the breadth of its territorial waters and Article 4 which talks about the outer limit of the territorial sea.
Why does India have to define its maritime boundary before ratifying UNCLOS?
UNCLOS does not mandate strict adherence to the rules mentioned in the convention but it is imperative for a country like India to contain regional disputes over marine resources with Srilanka given the new economic social order and to prevent overlapping of claims for resources on both ends.
