This case arose from a collision between a container vessel, demise chartered to the petitioner, CMA CGM Asia Shipping Pte Ltd, and an Indian fishing boat, the Rabah. The container vessel was travelling from the port of Singapore to Nhava Sheva. The fishing boat did not have lights, navigational aids, or insurance. The two vessels collided at 00h15 in rough weather conditions and low visibility, about 49 nm off the coast of Mangalore. When the accident took place, the container vessel immediately turned back, and the master was informed of the incident. A message was broadcast for assistance from nearby vessels and the Indian coast guard. The upturned fishing boat was located, and two fishers who were sitting on top of the fishing boat were rescued by the vessel and provided with first aid. None of the other fishing boats in the vicinity co-operated, despite the request from the container vessel.

A preliminary enquiry into the marine incident/casualties between the vessel and the fishing boat was undertaken under s 359 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958. The enquiry found that the container vessel was responsible for a rash and negligent act which killed 12 fishers on the fishing boat, and registered offences against all the accused, including the petitioner. The petitioner applied to the High Court, arguing that the enquiry was vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction.

Held: Petition dismissed.

The petitioner's contention that the enquiry was in violation of UNCLOS, with particular reference to arts 58 and 97, is unacceptable. Article 58 deals with rights and obligations of States within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Article 97 deals with the jurisdiction of penal or disciplinary proceedings in respect of an incident outside the territory of any particular State, and provides that such proceedings are to be dealt with only by the flag State or the State of which such person is a national. However, art 97 neither deals with EEZs nor directs proceedings within the territorial waters of any of the contracting States.

Reference should be made to the judgment of the apex Court in Republic of Italy v Union of India (CMI1477). The Court considered the entire spectrum of the provisions that have fallen for interpretation in this case. The argument in that case was that, since the incident took place outside territorial waters, India lacked jurisdiction to try the Italian marines within the territory of India. The Court held that India was entitled both under domestic law and public international law to exercise rights of sovereignty up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline on the basis of which the width of territorial waters is measured, but could exercise sovereign rights within the EEZ only for certain purposes. Because the incident occurred within the contiguous zone, the Union of India was entitled to prosecute the Italian marines under its local criminal justice system.

The Court thus considered every aspect of the Maritime Zones Act, the EEZ of India, and held that the limit of 220 [sic: 200] nm as indicated in art 27 [sic: 57] of UNCLOS is internationally recognised. Section 7 of the Maritime Zones Act stipulates the limit of the EEZ to be perfectly in tune with the terms of UNCLOS. The Court held that art 97 of UNCLOS has no application to the EEZ. The unmistakable inference is that art 97 of UNCLOS is only applicable to the high seas and not to the EEZ. The proceedings instituted against the petitioner are therefore not contrary to art 97 of UNCLOS.