History and Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts
-
- BCAS: 7103-1001
- admiraltypractice.com
The historical development of admiralty jurisdiction in India represents a fascinating journey through colonial administration, post-independence legal continuity, and modern legislative reform. Admiralty law, often termed maritime law, encompasses the legal framework governing nautical issues and private maritime disputes. In the Indian context, this specialized jurisdiction has evolved from its British colonial roots to become a sophisticated system addressing contemporary maritime commerce needs. This comprehensive examination traces the historical trajectory of admiralty jurisdiction in India, beginning with its earliest formal establishment in the late eighteenth century and culminating in the landmark Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act of 2017.
The narrative of admiralty jurisdiction in India commences with the establishment of the Recorder's Court at Bombay on 20th February 1798. This court represented the first formal institution exercising admiralty jurisdiction within Indian territory. Created during the expansion of British East India Company authority, the Recorder's Court addressed maritime and commercial disputes emerging from growing colonial trade networks. Its establishment marked the transplantation of English admiralty principles onto Indian soil, serving the needs of British maritime commerce in the region. However, the jurisdiction and structure of this court soon proved inadequate for the expanding complexities of colonial administration and maritime trade, necessitating judicial reform.
This reform materialized through the establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay under the Charter of 1823. This superior court replaced the Recorder's Court and was expressly invested with admiralty jurisdiction equivalent to that exercised by the High Court of Admiralty in England. The transition from the Recorder's Court to the Supreme Court represented a significant institutional advancement, providing a more robust framework for adjudicating maritime disputes. The Supreme Court operated with broader authority and more formalized procedures, setting the foundation for the subsequent development of admiralty jurisdiction in colonial India.
A transformative moment in Indian judicial history arrived with the enactment of the Indian High Courts Act of 1861 by the British Parliament. This pivotal legislation, though comprising only nineteen sections, fundamentally restructured the superior judiciary in British India. Its primary objective was the abolition of the existing Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats (the highest appellate courts in the presidencies) and their replacement with High Courts of Judicature. The Act authorized the Crown to issue Letters Patent establishing High Courts at the three principal presidency towns: Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. Each High Court would consist of a Chief Justice and puisne judges, not exceeding fifteen, appointed by Her Majesty.
The jurisdictional grant under the 1861 Act was comprehensive. Section 2 empowered each High Court to exercise "all such civil and criminal, admiralty and vice-admiralty, testamentary, intestate and matrimonial jurisdiction" as detailed in their respective Letters Patent. This legislative framework did not immediately create the courts but provided the statutory authority for their establishment. The Charter for the Calcutta High Court was issued on 14th May 1862, with the court becoming operational on 2nd July 1862. The Charters for the Bombay and Madras High Courts followed on 26th June 1862, with formal inaugurations on 14th and 15th August 1862 respectively. The former Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay was consequently superseded by the new High Court established under these Letters Patent.
The specific admiralty powers of the Bombay High Court received detailed articulation in Clause 31 of the Letters Patent of 1862, which expressly addressed admiralty and vice-admiralty jurisdiction. These Letters Patent were subsequently revised and replaced by the Letters Patent of 1865. Clause 32 of this revised instrument became the cornerstone of the Bombay High Court's admiralty authority for decades. It ordained that the High Court "shall have and exercise all such civil and maritime jurisdiction as may now be exercised by the said High Court as a Court of Admiralty or of Vice Admiralty, and also such jurisdiction for the trial and adjudication of prize causes and other maritime questions arising in India as may now be exercised by the said High Court." This provision ensured continuity of admiralty jurisdiction while firmly embedding it within the newly established High Court structure.
The imperial dimension of admiralty jurisdiction expanded significantly with the enactment of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 by the British Parliament. This legislation established a uniform framework for admiralty jurisdiction across the British Empire. Section 2(1) of the Act provided that any court of law in a British possession possessing original unlimited civil jurisdiction would automatically function as a Colonial Court of Admiralty, unless specified otherwise by declaration. The Act further empowered colonial legislatures to designate specific courts as Colonial Courts of Admiralty and to regulate their procedural aspects, as detailed in Sections 3 and 7.
Pursuant to this enabling authority, the Indian Legislature promptly enacted the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891 (Act No. XVI of 1891). The preamble of this Act explicitly referenced the 1890 imperial legislation. Its operative provision declared the High Courts of Judicature at Bombay, Calcutta (Fort William in Bengal), and Madras to be Colonial Courts of Admiralty. This declaration had profound legal consequences: these three High Courts now possessed admiralty jurisdiction identical "in extent and quality" to the jurisdiction vested in the High Court of Admiralty in England under contemporary statutes and customs. This legislative action completed the formal assimilation of English admiralty law into the Indian judicial system at its highest level. Consequently, the English Admiralty Courts Act of 1861 became applicable in India through the conduit of these colonial statutes.
Following India's independence in 1947, the existing legal framework, including admiralty law, continued in force under Article 372 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional provision mandated the continuation of all pre-constitution laws until altered, repealed, or amended by competent legislative authority. For several decades, despite significant evolution and expansion of admiralty jurisdiction in England through statutes such as the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, and the Supreme Court Act, 1981, India's admiralty law remained essentially frozen in its nineteenth-century colonial formulation under the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. This legislative inertia created an increasing divergence between the demands of modern maritime commerce and the legal tools available to the judiciary for addressing contemporary maritime disputes.
The culmination of India's long journey toward a modern admiralty regime arrived with the enactment of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. This landmark legislation represents a decisive break from colonial legal dependency and establishes a comprehensive, indigenous framework for admiralty jurisdiction in India. The Act explicitly repealed the application of the English Admiralty Courts Act, 1861, and related colonial provisions, affirming India's sovereign legal authority in maritime matters. The 2017 Act incorporates several transformative features designed to address the deficiencies of the previous regime and align Indian law with contemporary international standards and practices.
Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction: The Act significantly expanded the geographical reach of admiralty jurisdiction in India. Beyond the original three High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, it extended jurisdiction to several additional High Courts, including those in Gujarat, Odisha, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Karnataka. This expansion effectively decentralized maritime dispute resolution, recognizing the growth of major ports and maritime activity across India's extensive coastline and accommodating litigants' needs in different maritime regions.
Jurisdiction over Maritime Claims: The Act provides a precise and exhaustive enumeration of maritime claims over which the High Courts exercise jurisdiction, as detailed in Section 4. This comprehensive list includes claims concerning vessel ownership, disputes among co-owners, mortgage enforcement, damage caused by ship operations (including collisions), loss of life or personal injury connected to vessel operations, salvage operations, environmental damage, wreck removal, and critically, claims for the supply of goods or services necessary for a vessel's operation. This explicit categorization brings much-needed clarity and predictability to the scope of admiralty jurisdiction.
Vessel Arrest and Security: The Act establishes clear statutory procedures for the arrest of vessels within the jurisdictional reach of the concerned High Court to secure maritime claims, as outlined in Sections 5 and 6. It provides a straightforward mechanism for the release of an arrested vessel upon the provision of adequate security by the shipowner or other interested party. These provisions balance the claimant's need for security with the vessel owner's interest in minimizing commercial disruption.
Priority of Maritime Liens: One of the Act's most significant contributions is the statutory codification of maritime lien priorities in Section 9. It establishes a definitive hierarchy, ensuring that certain socially and economically important claims, such as wages owed to seafarers and compensation for loss of life or personal injury, receive precedence over other claims, including mortgage claims, during the distribution of proceeds from the judicial sale of a vessel. This statutory prioritization promotes fairness and addresses longstanding uncertainties in lien enforcement.
Judicial Sale of Vessels: The Act provides a transparent and orderly framework for the judicial sale of arrested vessels and the subsequent distribution of sale proceeds among claimants according to the statutory order of priority, as specified in Sections 8 and 10. This structured process enhances procedural fairness, maximizes vessel value through proper sale mechanisms, and ensures equitable distribution among competing claimants.
International Conventions: The Act consciously aligns Indian admiralty law with key international instruments, particularly the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999, and the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993. This alignment promotes harmonization with global maritime legal standards, enhances predictability for international maritime operators, and strengthens India's position within the international maritime community. By incorporating internationally recognized principles, the Act facilitates smoother resolution of cross-border maritime disputes.
The historical evolution of admiralty jurisdiction in India reflects a broader narrative of legal development from colonial imposition to sovereign codification. Beginning as a transplanted English legal institution serving imperial commercial interests, admiralty jurisdiction was administered initially through the Recorder's Court and later through the Presidency High Courts. For over a century following the 1891 Act, this jurisdiction, while potent, remained conceptually linked to its English origins, leading to a period of statutory stagnation after independence. The enactment of the Admiralty Act, 2017, marks the definitive conclusion of this historical journey. It establishes a sovereign, comprehensive, and contemporary legal code that responds effectively to the complex demands of twenty-first-century maritime trade while respecting India's distinctive legal heritage and constitutional framework. This modern legislation ensures that the High Courts of India are now equipped with a clear, expansive, and internationally coherent framework to administer maritime justice effectively, supporting India's aspirations as a leading maritime nation in the global arena.
The development of admiralty jurisdiction in India demonstrates the dynamic interaction between colonial legal heritage and post-independence legislative innovation. From its origins in the Recorder's Court of 1798 to the comprehensive Admiralty Act of 2017, this legal domain has continuously adapted to meet changing commercial realities and national priorities. The current legal framework, while respecting historical foundations, now provides a robust, self-contained system for addressing maritime disputes, securing claims through vessel arrest, and prioritizing maritime liens in a manner consistent with both domestic needs and international standards. This evolution underscores the capacity of legal systems to transform while maintaining continuity, ensuring that admiralty jurisdiction remains a vital component of India's commercial legal architecture in an increasingly interconnected global maritime economy.
Common law legal systems of the United States and Britain are in contrast to civil law legal systems which prevail in continental Europe and trace back to old Roman codified law. Even in England, however, admiralty courts were/are separate from common law courts, and generally follow civil law principles. Most of the common law countries (including Pakistan, Singapore, India, and many other Commonwealth of Nations countries) follow English statute and case law. India still follows many Victorian-era British statutes such as the Admiralty Court Act 1861 [24 Vict c 10]. Whilst Pakistan now has its own statute, the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance XLII of 1980), it also follows English case law. One reason for this is that the 1980 Ordinance is partly modelled on old English admiralty law, namely the Administration of Justice Act 1956. The current statute dealing with the Admiralty jurisdiction of the England and Wales High Court is the Supreme Court Act 1981, ss. 20-24, 37. The provisions in those sections are, in turn, based on the International Arrest Convention 1952. Other countries which do not follow the English statute and case laws, such as Panama, also have established well-known maritime courts which decide international cases on a regular basis. Admiralty courts assume jurisdiction by virtue of the presence of the vessel in its territorial jurisdiction irrespective of whether the vessel is national or not and whether registered or not, and wherever the residence or domicile or their owners may be. A vessel is usually arrested by the court to retain jurisdiction. State-owned vessels are usually immune from arrest.
The State Reorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted to provide for the reorganisation of the States of India. The existing States were divided or expanded and the new States came to be formed from the appointed day i.e. 1st November 1956. Under section 8 of the Act of 1956 a new Part A State to be known as the State of Bombay came to be formed comprising the territories stated therein which inter alia included the territories of the existing State of Kutch. Part V of the Act of 1956 deals with High Courts. Section 49 provides that the High Courts exercising jurisdiction immediately before the appointed day shall be deemed to be High Courts of New States and accordingly High Court of Judicature at Bombay became empowered to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of new State of Bombay by virtue of section 52 of the Act of 1956. Sections 49 and 52 which are relevant for the present purposes read thus:--
49. (1) The High Courts exercising immediately before the appointed day jurisdiction to relation to existing States of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab shall, as from the appointed day, be deemed to be the High Courts for the new States of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab respectively.
52. The High Court for a new State shall have, in respect of any part of the territories included in that new State, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of that part of the said territories by any High Court or Judicial Commissioner's Court for an existing State.
The State of Bombay which came to be formed in the year 1956 under the Act of 1956 was further reorganised under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act of 1960). The appointed day of the said Act is 1st of May 1960. Under section 3 of the Act of 1960, State of Gujarat was formed comprising some of the territories of Bombay and the residuary State of Bombay was named the State of Maharashtra. The territories which form the State of Gujarat include Kutch district. Section 3 reads thus:
3. (1) As from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new State to be known as the State of Gujarat comprising the following territories of the State of Bombay, namely,:---
(a) Banaskantha, Mehsana, Sabarkantha, Ahmedabad, Kaira, Panch-Mahals, Baroda, Broach, Surat, Dangs, Amreli, Surendra nagar, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Junagadh, Bhavnagar and Kutch distircts; and
(b) the villages in Umbergaon taluka of Thana district, the villages in Nawapur and Nandurbar talukas of West Khandesh district and the villages in Akkalkuwa and Taloda talukas of West Khandesh district, respectively specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule; and thereupon, the said territories shall cease to form part of the State of Bombay, and the residuary State of Bombay shall be known as the State of Maharashtra.
(2) The villages in Umbergaon taluka specified in Part I of the First Schedule shall form a separate taluka of the same name and be included in Surat district, and the remaining villages in the said taluka shall be included in, and form part of, Dahanu taluka of Thana district; and the villages specified in Parts II and III of the First Schedule shall rspectively be included in, and form part of, Sangadh taluka of Surat district and Sagbara taluka of Broach distirct."
The separate High Court for the State of Gujarat was established under section 28 of the Act of 1960 which also provide that High Court of Bombay shall become the High Court for the State of Maharashtra. The High Court of Gujarat, under section 30 of the said Act was conferred jurisdiction in respect of the territories included in the State of Gujarat having the same powers and the jurisdiction which the High Court of Bombay had in respect of the said territories immediately before the appointed date.
The historical development of admiralty jurisdiction and procedure is of practical as well as theoretical interest, since opinions in admiralty cases frequently refer to the historical background in reaching conclusions on the questions at issue. The special jurisdiction of admiralty has a maritime purpose, different from the common law. It is not exclusively rooted in the civil law system, although it includes substantial derivations there from. It has a strong international aspect, but may undergo independent changes in several countries. Certain universal features exist in all countries that have admiralty law and such international features are given serious consideration by admiralty courts. By the end of the seventeenth century the admiralty jurisdiction in England was restricted, it was not as extensive as compared to other European maritime countries due to a long standing controversy in which the common law courts with the aid of the Parliament had succeeded in limiting the jurisdiction of admiralty to the high seas and as such excluded admiralty jurisdiction from transactions arising on waters within the body of a country.
A suit against a foreign ship owned by a foreign company not having a place of residence or business in India is liable to be proceeded against on the admiralty side of the High Court by an action in rem in respect of the cause of action alleged to have arisen by reason of a tort or a breach of obligation arising from the carriage of goods from a port in India to a foreign port. Courts having admiralty jurisdiction is not limited to what was permitted by the Admiralty Court, 1861 and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. Prior to the decision of m.v Elisabeth-v- Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd., Goa, the courts exercising Admiralty Jurisdiction statutorily in India were the three High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The High Courts of the other littoral states of India, viz. Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, do not possess Admiralty jurisdiction, albeit there have been instances of the High Courts of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa having entertained Admiralty causes apparently on a perfunctory consideration of the various States Reorganisation Acts enacted by the Indian Parliament and presumably without the benefit of a full argument. However, after the decision of the Supreme Court in m.v Elisabeth-v- Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd) interpreting under A.225 the High Courts in India is superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers.
The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were the same as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England at the time of the enactment by the British Parliament of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 and is, under subsection (2) of the said Act, and subject to the provisions thereof, over the like places, persons, matters and things as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England, whether existing by virtue of any statute or otherwise and exercised in the like manner and to as full an extent as the High Court in England having the same regard as that court to international law and the comity of nations. The subsequent extension of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England by statutes passed after that date by the British Parliament, the Administration of Justice Act 1920, re-enacted by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, is not shared by the said three High Courts. After India attained independence, the Indian Parliament has so far not exercised it powers to make laws with respect to Admiralty and thus the three Indian High Courts were to apply Admiralty laws as it was applied by the English Court of Admiralty as defined in the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. The scope and nature of the Admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India have been examined and ascertained in Kamlakar v. The Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd; Rungta Sons Ltd. v. Owners and Master of Edison6; National Co. Ltd. v. M. S. Asia Mariner ; m.v Elisabeth-v- Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd., Goa
The fact that the High Court continues to enjoy the same jurisdiction as it had immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, as stated in Art. 225, does not mean that a matter which is covered by the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 cannot be otherwise dealt with by the High Court, subject to its own Rules, in exercise of its manifold jurisdiction, which is unless barred, unlimited. To the extent not barred expressly or by necessary implication, the judicial sovereignty of this country is manifested in the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts as superior courts. It is true that the Colonial statutes continue to remain in force by reason of Art. 372 of the Constitution of India, but that do not stultify the growth of law or blinker its vision or fetter its arms. Legislation has always marched behind time, but it is the duty of the Court to expound and fashion the law for the present and the future to meet the ends of justice.
It was because of the unlimited civil jurisdiction that was already vested in these High Courts that they were declared to be Colonial Courts of Admiralty having the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as was vested in the High Court of England by virtue of any statute or custom. The High Courts were declared competent to regulate their procedure and practice in exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in accordance with the Rules made in that behalf. There is, therefore, neither reason nor logic in imposing a fetter on the jurisdiction of those High Courts by limiting it to the provisions of an imperial statute of 1861 and freezing any further growth of jurisdiction. This is even truer because the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 was in substance repealed in England a long time ago.
Assuming that the admiralty powers of the High Courts in India are limited to what had been derived from the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, that Act, having equated certain Indian High Courts to the High Court of England in regard to admiralty jurisdiction, must be considered to have conferred on the former all such powers which the latter enjoyed in 1890 and thereafter during the period preceding the Indian Independence Act, 1947. What the Act of 1890 did was not to incorporate any English statute into Indian law, but to equate the admiralty jurisdiction of the Indian High Courts over places, persons, matters and things to that of the English High Court. There is no reason to think that the jurisdiction of the Indian High Courts have stood frozen and atrophied on the date of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890.
Yet there appears no escape from it, notwithstanding its unpleasant echo in ears. The shock is still greater when it transpired that this state of affairs was and is due to lack of legislative exercise.
Viewed in the background of enactment of 1890 it would be too artificial to confine the exercise of power by the High Courts in Admiralty to what was contained in 1861 Act. Even otherwise for deciding the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in India founded on jurisdiction exercised by the High Court of England it is not necessary to be governed by the decisions given by English Courts. Law is pragmatic in nature to problems arising under an Act and not by abdication or surrender, 1890 Act is an unusual piece of legislation expansive in scope, wider in outlook, opening out the wings of jurisdiction rather than closing in. The authority and power exercised by the High Court in England, the width of which was not confined to the statute but went deep into custom, practice, necessity and even exigency.
Law of 1890 apart, can the Indian High Courts after 1950 be denied jurisdiction to arrest a foreign ship to satisfy the claim of an owner of a bill of lading for cargo taken outside the country ? Without entering into any comparative study regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and the High Courts in our country the one basic difference that exists today is that the English Courts derive their creation, constitution and jurisdiction from Administration of Justice Act or Supreme Court Act but the High Courts in our country are established under the Constitution. Under Art. 225 enlarged preserves the jurisdiction, including inherent jurisdiction, which existed on the date the Constitution came into force and Art. 226 enlarged it by making it not only a custodian of fundamental rights of a citizen but a repository of power to reach its arms to do justice. A citizen carrying on a particular business which is a fundamental right cannot be rendered helpless on the premise that the jurisdiction of the High Courts stands frozen either by the statute of England or any custom or practice prevailing there or the High Court of England cannot exercise the jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England used to be exercised in rem in such matters as from their very nature would give rise to a maritime lien - e.g. collision, salvage, bottomry. The jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England was, however, extended to cover matters in respect of which there was no maritime lien, i.e., necessaries supplied to a foreign ship. In terms of Section 6 of the Admiralty Act, 1861, the High Court of Admiralty was empowered to assume jurisdiction over foreign ships in respect of claims to cargo carried into any port in England or Wales. By reason of Judicature Act of 1873, the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice resulted in a fusion: of admiralty law, common law and equity. The limit of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty court in terms of Section 6 of the 1861 Act was discarded by the Administration of Justice Act, 1920 and the jurisdiction of the High Court thereby was extended to (a) any claim arising out of an agreement relating to the use or hire of a ship; (b) any claim relating to the carriage of goods in any ship; and (c) any claim in tort in respect of goods carried in any ship.
The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court was further consolidated by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 so as to include various matters such as any claim "for damage done by a ship", and claim 'arising out of an agreement relating to the use or hire of a ship'; or 'relating to the carriage of goods in a ship'; or "in tort in respect of goods carried in a ship".
The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court was further widened by the Administration of Justice Act, 1956 so as to include not only the claims specified under Section 1(i) of Part I but also any other jurisdiction which either was vested in the High Court of Admiralty immediately before the date of commencement of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873 (i.e. November 1, 1875) or is conferred by or under an Act which came into operation on or after that date on the High Court as being a court with admiralty jurisdiction and any other jurisdiction connected with ships vested in the High Court apart from this section which is for the time being assigned by rules of court to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division.
Sub-section (4) of Section 1 removed the restriction based on the ownership of the ship. By reason of Clauses (d)(g) and (h) of the said Section the jurisdiction in regard to question or claims specified under Section 1(i) included any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship, any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship.
In the course of time the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Gujarat, Hyderabad, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa have entertained Admiralty actions.
The Admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in Indian Republic is now governed by the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, repealing the English Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 applied by (English) Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 and adopted by Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891 (Act XVI of 1891).
The 1861 Act was discarded by the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 on August 9, 2017 with this t he Indian Courts vested with Admiralty jurisdiction are the Bombay High Court; Calcutta High Court; Madras High Court; Gujarat High Court; Odisha High Court; Telangana High Court; Andhra Pradesh High Court; Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court. At the time when Admiralty suit is filed the vessel should be within the state territorial waters. The Admiralty jurisdiction of each of these courts is concurrent and territorially extends over the coast line of India.