Damage or Threat to Environment
- BCAS: 7103-1001
- admiraltypractice.com
Environmental protection, especially concerning marine ecosystems, has gained significant attention globally due to the rising incidences of pollution and environmental degradation caused by maritime activities. In India, specific legislative measures have been put in place to address such issues. The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (recently superseded by the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025), are pivotal in regulating and mitigating environmental damage caused by vessels. These laws, read with international conventions and India's emerging jurisprudence on marine environmental accountability, form a comprehensive legal framework for safeguarding the coastline and related interests.
The increasing frequency of maritime incidents—from oil spills and chemical discharges to groundings and collisions—has underscored the urgent need for robust legal mechanisms that not only provide compensation for environmental harm but also act as a deterrent against negligent vessel operations. India, with its vast coastline stretching over 7,500 kilometres and an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) rich in marine biodiversity, has emerged as a key jurisdiction for the enforcement of environmental claims against vessels. The ability to arrest a vessel for causing, or threatening to cause, damage to the environment is a powerful tool that aligns Indian maritime law with the highest international standards.
The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017
Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, encapsulates provisions addressing claims related to environmental damage or the threat thereof caused by vessels. This provision, which is among the most progressive in any national admiralty legislation, allows the High Court to exercise jurisdiction over a wide array of claims arising from vessel-source environmental harm. The statutory language is deliberately expansive, ensuring that no form of ecological injury—whether immediate or prospective—falls outside the purview of the court's admiralty jurisdiction.
Damage to Environment: Claims can be made for damage caused by a vessel to the environment, including the coastline or related interests. This includes direct physical damage to natural resources, such as coral reefs, mangrove forests, seagrass beds, and other sensitive habitats, as well as indirect damage such as loss of biodiversity, disruption of food chains, and contamination of water columns. The term "environment" has been interpreted broadly to encompass not just the natural physical surroundings but also the ecological services that these systems provide, such as carbon sequestration, shoreline protection, and nursery grounds for commercially important fish species.
Preventive Measures: Measures taken to prevent, minimise, or remove such damage are covered, including compensation for these actions. This aspect of Section 4(1)(u) recognises that effective environmental protection often requires immediate and proactive intervention, even before full-scale damage has materialised. For instance, the deployment of oil booms, dispersants, skimmers, and other pollution response equipment—along with the associated costs of mobilising personnel and vessels—can be recovered under this provision. The statute does not require that the preventive measures be successful in averting all harm; it is sufficient that they were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. This approach incentivises rapid response and discourages shipowners from delaying action in the hope of avoiding liability.
Compensation for Damage: Compensation for the actual damage incurred is a significant aspect. This head of claim covers the quantifiable economic losses resulting from environmental harm, including the cost of cleaning up polluted shorelines, the value of lost marine resources, the expense of monitoring and assessing environmental impacts, and the diminution in the value of coastal property. Importantly, compensation is not limited to the costs incurred by government agencies or environmental authorities; private parties, including coastal communities, fisheries cooperatives, and tourism operators, may also claim for losses directly attributable to the environmental damage caused by the vessel.
Restoration Costs: Costs of reasonable measures for the restoration of the environment actually undertaken or to be undertaken are included. This forward-looking element recognises that environmental restoration is often a long-term, multi-phase process that may extend over years or even decades. Restoration measures may include replanting mangroves, rehabilitating coral reefs through transplantation, restocking fish populations, removing contaminated sediments, and undertaking long-term monitoring to ensure that recovery is achieved. Under Section 4(1)(u), a claimant does not need to wait until all restoration work has been completed before seeking recovery; costs that are reasonably anticipated and properly documented can be claimed as part of the maritime claim.
Third-Party Losses: Losses incurred or likely to be incurred by third parties in connection with such environmental damage are covered. This provision extends the scope of liability beyond direct environmental harm to encompass the ripple effects on economic activities dependent on a healthy marine environment. For example, if a fishery is closed due to contamination from a vessel's oil spill, fishers who suffer loss of income can claim compensation under this head. Similarly, hoteliers and restaurateurs whose businesses are affected by beach closures or diminished tourist arrivals may pursue claims. The phrase "likely to be incurred" is particularly significant, as it allows claims for prospective losses that, while not yet realised, are reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the environmental damage.
Other Related Costs: Any other damage, costs, or losses of a similar nature to those identified are included. This catch-all provision ensures that the list of compensable items is not exhaustive and that novel or emerging forms of environmental harm—such as damage from underwater noise pollution, ballast water discharge introducing invasive species, or the effects of microplastics on marine food webs—can be addressed by Indian admiralty courts. The flexibility inherent in this clause makes Section 4(1)(u) a future-proof provision capable of adapting to evolving scientific understanding of marine environmental impacts.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, has long served as the cornerstone of India's regulatory framework for shipping, including the prevention and containment of marine pollution. Parts X-B, X-C, and XI-A of the 1958 Act specifically deal with the prevention and containment of marine pollution, particularly oil pollution, aligning India's domestic law with the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (CLC 1992) and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (Fund Convention). These conventions, to which India is a party, establish a tiered liability and compensation regime for oil pollution damage from tankers, ensuring that victims of spills are compensated even when the shipowner's liability is exhausted or cannot meet the full claim.
In a landmark development, the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 (Act No. 24 of 2025) received the assent of the President on 18 August 2025, ushering in a new era for Indian maritime regulation. The 2025 Act consolidates and amends the law relating to merchant shipping to ensure compliance with India's obligations under maritime treaties and international instruments while also promoting the development of Indian shipping and the efficient maintenance of the Indian mercantile marine. The 2025 Act significantly downsizes the regulatory framework from the 1958 Act's 561 Sections to just 325 Clauses across 16 Parts, making it more concise, user-friendly, and aligned with contemporary shipping practices. Key features of the 2025 Act include stricter rules on pollution control, ballast water management, waste disposal, and emergency preparedness; improved seafarer welfare provisions aligned with the Maritime Labour Convention; expanded eligibility for ship registration to include Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs), and Indian companies; and the introduction of digitalisation measures such as electronic certificates and risk-based inspections.
Section 352G of the Merchant Shipping Act (as it stood under the 1958 framework, with corresponding provisions in the 2025 Act)
Section 352G, which has been substantially replicated in the 2025 Act, extends the Act's applicability to every Indian ship, wherever it may be, and to every foreign ship while it is at a port or place in India or within Indian territorial waters or marine areas adjacent thereto over which India has or may have exclusive jurisdiction. This broad jurisdictional reach reflects India's commitment to exercising its rights and fulfilling its duties under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, to which India is a State Party. The provision emphasises the responsibility of ship owners and operators to prevent pollution and take necessary measures in case of accidental discharges, including the obligation to report incidents promptly and to cooperate with Indian authorities in pollution response operations.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, reinforces these principles by introducing enhanced penalties for pollution offences, streamlined procedures for the arrest of vessels in pollution cases, and clearer guidelines for the determination of liability. The 2025 Act also establishes a dedicated Marine Environmental Protection Fund, financed by contributions from the shipping industry, to finance pollution response, restoration projects, and compensation payments in cases where the polluter cannot be identified or lacks sufficient financial resources. This innovative mechanism ensures that the burden of environmental harm does not fall entirely on the State or on innocent third parties, but is shared across the maritime industry.
International Conventions and National Laws
India, being a signatory to several international conventions, integrates these frameworks within its national legislation. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (CLC 1992) outlines the liability of shipowners for oil pollution damage, mandating adequate insurance or financial security to cover potential claims for pollution damage. Under the CLC 1992 regime, shipowners of tankers carrying more than 2,000 tonnes of persistent oil as cargo are required to maintain insurance or other financial security, such as a bank guarantee or a certificate from a Protection and Indemnity (P&I) club, to cover their liability up to the limits prescribed by the convention. These limits are periodically updated, and India has implemented these updates through amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act and subordinate legislation.
The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (Fund Convention), which India has also acceded to, establishes a supplementary compensation fund financed by contributions from oil receivers in member States. The 1992 Fund provides additional compensation to victims of oil pollution damage when the compensation available under the CLC 1992 is inadequate to cover the full extent of the damage. The combined effect of the CLC 1992 and the Fund Convention is that claimants in India can potentially recover compensation up to limits that are substantially higher than the shipowner's liability alone, ensuring that even catastrophic spills do not leave victims uncompensated. The International Oil Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Funds have engaged actively with Indian authorities, including the Directorate General of Shipping and the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, to promote awareness of the compensation regime and to ensure its effective implementation in India. A senior IOPC Funds delegation visited India in August 2022, meeting with the Minister of Ports, Shipping and Waterways and the Director General of the Indian Coast Guard to discuss the application of the Fund Convention and the importance of prompt and fair compensation in the event of a spill.
Beyond the oil pollution liability conventions, India is also party to a range of other international maritime environmental instruments. These include the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), which regulates pollution from ships by oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful packaged goods, sewage, garbage, and air emissions; the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (AFS Convention); the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (BWM Convention); and the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (Hong Kong Convention). India has enacted domestic legislation and rules to implement each of these conventions, ensuring that ships operating in Indian waters—and Indian ships operating globally—adhere to the highest environmental standards.
Recent Developments in Marine Environmental Protection Law
The sinking of the Liberian-flagged cargo vessel MSC Elsa 3 off the coast of Kochi in 2025 marked a watershed moment in Indian maritime environmental law. The vessel, which was carrying hazardous cargo including calcium carbide, diesel, furnace oil, and plastic pellets, sank approximately 14.6 nautical miles from the Kerala coast, prompting a major pollution response operation and giving rise to significant legal proceedings. In a landmark ruling, the Kerala High Court, in the matter concerning the arrest of the sister ship MV MSC Akiteta II, interpreted Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, in a manner that significantly clarifies the extraterritorial reach of India's environmental claims jurisdiction.
The Court held that even if the sinking of a vessel occurs outside India's territorial waters—that is, in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—if the resulting pollution or threat of pollution has an effect inside territorial waters or causes a threat to territorial waters, the State is competent to sue on a maritime claim arising therefrom. This ruling is of immense practical importance, as it establishes that India's admiralty courts can exercise jurisdiction over environmental damage caused by vessels in the EEZ, provided that the harm is felt or threatens to manifest itself within the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea belt where India exercises full sovereignty. The Court further clarified that a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(u) can arise not only from actual pollution within territorial waters but also from a credible threat of pollution that originates from an incident in the EEZ.
The Kerala High Court's reasoning drew upon the travaux préparatoires of the International Arrest Convention 1999, citing the response given by the United States to a question posed by Mexico. The United States had explained that a "threat of damage" can give rise to a maritime claim because a whole series of measures may have to be taken in order to prevent damage to the environment, even when a pollution incident has not yet occurred. The Court accepted that it is not the preventive measures alone that constitute a maritime claim; rather, a maritime claim arises from the threat when, on account of that threat, loss or injury is suffered due to the inability to perform regular activities in the affected area. This nuanced interpretation balances the need to provide effective remedies for environmental harm with the principle that a mere apprehension of damage, unsupported by any concrete impact or imminent risk, is insufficient to found an admiralty claim.
The MSC Elsa 3 incident also gave rise to a significant public interest litigation (PIL) before the Kerala High Court, T. N. Prathapan v. Union of India & Ors. The PIL, filed by former Member of Parliament T. N. Prathapan, highlighted the lack of transparency and preparedness following the sinking of the vessel. The petitioner alleged that 13 containers of calcium carbide—a hazardous substance that emits toxic gas on contact with water—along with hundreds of tonnes of oil, had leaked from the sunken vessel, severely affecting marine life and coastal communities. The incident occurred just before the monsoon fishing ban, a period when fisherfolk are already economically vulnerable, and the resulting contamination devastated lakhs of fishing families. The Kerala High Court directed the State to disclose the full list of hazardous cargo aboard the vessel, to assess and publish the environmental impact of the spill, to ensure clean-up and containment measures are carried out effectively, and to compensate affected fisherfolk under applicable laws. This judicial oversight has set a powerful precedent for the proactive role of the High Courts in environmental disaster management, even before the full extent of the damage is known.
The Court in the MSC Elsa 3 proceedings also identified significant legal and policy failures, including the absence of a robust oil spill contingency plan despite mandates under the National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (NOSDCP), delayed government response to the spill, and a lack of public communication about the risks posed by chemical exposure and microplastics. These findings have prompted the Central Government to initiate a comprehensive review of India's oil spill preparedness framework, with a view to aligning it more closely with international best practices as reflected in the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), 1990.
Arrest of Ships for Environmental Damage
Under the Admiralty Act, 2017, a ship can be arrested for environmental damage caused within Indian waters or on the high seas, provided that the damage has consequences within India's maritime zones or poses a threat to India's coastline or related interests. This provision is crucial for enforcing environmental protection and ensuring that responsible parties are held accountable. The power to arrest a vessel is not limited to ships that directly caused the environmental harm; sister ships—that is, other vessels owned or controlled by the same person—may also be arrested as security for the environmental claim. This "sister ship arrest" mechanism, which is expressly provided for in Section 5 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, is a powerful enforcement tool because it prevents shipowners from evading liability by moving the offending vessel out of Indian jurisdiction before a claim can be filed.
In the MSC Akiteta II case, the Kerala High Court granted a conditional order of arrest of the sister ship on the basis that it belonged to the same owner as the sunken MSC Elsa 3, and the owner had failed to furnish adequate security for the environmental claim of the State of Kerala. The State claimed a total of INR 9,531 Crores in compensation for the environmental damage and restoration costs, underscoring the potentially enormous financial stakes involved in major pollution incidents. The Court ordered the arrest to continue until the owners deposited the claim amount into Court or furnished security to the satisfaction of the Court, demonstrating the willingness of Indian admiralty courts to use ship arrest as a tool to secure substantial environmental claims.
The arrest of vessels for environmental damage is not limited to oil tankers or bulk carriers; it extends to all types of vessels, including container ships, passenger vessels, fishing boats, and offshore support vessels. The key consideration is whether the vessel has caused, or poses a credible threat of causing, damage to the environment, coastline, or related interests. This broad scope ensures that no category of vessel is immune from environmental accountability and that shipowners across all sectors of the maritime industry are incentivised to operate responsibly.
Recent incidents have also highlighted the role of the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) in detecting and responding to potential environmental violations. In February 2026, the ICG seized three vessels owned by a Dubai-based owner for allegedly engaging in illegal transfer of oil in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Indian Ocean, forging documents, and turning off the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to hide their identity. The vessels were arrested on the ground that they posed a threat to the marine environment due to unregulated oil transfers, lack of proper insurance, and suspicious operational patterns. The vessel owner denied the allegations, but the incident underscores the proactive enforcement role of Indian maritime authorities in preventing environmental harm before it occurs, and the willingness of Indian courts to sustain arrests based on threatened environmental damage.
Preventive and Remedial Measures under Indian Environmental Legislation
The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (Maritime Zones Act, 1976), provides a comprehensive framework for controlling marine pollution within India's territorial waters, continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone. The Act explicitly asserts India's sovereign rights over the exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of natural resources in these zones, as well as India's jurisdiction to protect and preserve the marine environment. Section 7 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, empowers the Central Government to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the sea in the EEZ, and to punish violations of pollution control laws. The Act also provides for the application of the Merchant Shipping Act and other laws to the EEZ, ensuring a consistent legal framework across India's maritime zones.
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, complement the admiralty and shipping legislation by providing additional avenues for environmental accountability. The Environment (Protection) Act empowers the Central Government to take all necessary measures to protect and improve the environment, including the issuance of directions to any person, vessel, or industry to stop or regulate activities causing environmental harm. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, established specialised tribunals for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. While the National Green Tribunal's jurisdiction over maritime environmental matters has been subject to some jurisdictional overlap with the High Courts exercising admiralty jurisdiction, recent judicial pronouncements have clarified that the High Courts retain jurisdiction over maritime claims under the Admiralty Act, 2017, including environmental claims, and that the National Green Tribunal's jurisdiction is generally limited to matters arising under specified environmental laws.
Several rules have been drawn up under these Acts to address various aspects of marine pollution, including the discharge of pollutants, waste management, and emergency response protocols. The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Oil) Rules, the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships) Rules, and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Rules implement the various Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 in Indian law. The Oil Spill Response Contingency Plan, formulated under the Merchant Shipping Act, sets out the roles and responsibilities of various agencies, including the Indian Coast Guard, the Directorate General of Shipping, port authorities, and vessel owners, in responding to oil spills in Indian waters. The plan requires vessels entering Indian ports to maintain oil spill response equipment on board and to participate in regular drills and exercises.
Chapter 28 of the Admiralty Practice in India publication (of which this text forms a part) provides a detailed analysis of these preventive and remedial measures, along with practical guidance for shipowners, operators, insurers, and legal practitioners on their obligations and liabilities under Indian law. The chapter emphasises that environmental protection is not merely a matter of statutory compliance, but a fundamental aspect of responsible maritime operations that requires proactive risk management, continuous training of crew, and a culture of environmental stewardship throughout the organisation.
India's legal framework for vessel-source marine environmental protection adopts a holistic approach that integrates admiralty law, shipping law, environmental law, and international law into a coherent system of liability, compensation, and deterrence.
Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty Act (2017) occupies a critical space in safeguarding the marine environment. It empowers claimants to potentially arrest a vessel if it has caused, or poses a credible threat of causing, damage to the environment, coastline, or related interests. This section encompasses a broad range of scenarios, including:
Pollution Incidents: Oil spills, chemical discharges, and other forms of pollution caused by vessels fall under this provision. Whether the pollution results from a collision, grounding, equipment failure, or intentional discharge, Section 4(1)(u) provides a remedy for the resulting environmental harm. The source of the pollution is not limited to cargo; bunker fuel, lubricating oils, refrigerants, sewage, garbage, and even invasive species transported in ballast water can give rise to claims under this provision.
Habitat Destruction: Damage to coral reefs, mangroves, or other sensitive ecosystems due to a vessel's activities can be grounds for arrest. This includes not only direct physical damage, such as a vessel grounding on a coral reef or propeller damage to seagrass beds, but also indirect damage, such as smothering of benthic habitats by sediment or contamination of sediments by toxic substances. The long-term ecological consequences of habitat destruction—including loss of biodiversity, reduced fishery productivity, and diminished coastal protection—are compensable under Section 4(1)(u).
Marine Species Impact: Collisions with endangered marine animals or disruption of migration patterns can trigger claims under Section 4(1)(u). India is home to rich marine biodiversity, including several species of whales, dolphins, dugongs, sea turtles, and seabirds, many of which are protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. A vessel that strikes and kills an endangered whale, for example, may be arrested not only for the direct harm to the animal but also for the broader ecological impact of losing a breeding individual from an already vulnerable population.
Beyond Immediate Damage: A Holistic Approach
The ambit of Section 4(1)(u) extends beyond immediate environmental damage. It also covers:
Measures to Prevent or Mitigate Damage: Costs associated with actions taken to prevent or minimise environmental harm caused by a vessel can be recovered through this provision. This includes the cost of deploying pollution response equipment, mobilising response personnel, conducting aerial surveillance, and implementing temporary measures to contain or divert pollutants. Significantly, the statute does not require that the preventive measures be authorised by a government agency; private parties who take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate environmental damage—such as a coastal community deploying improvised booms to protect their fishing grounds—may also recover their costs under this provision.
Restoration Efforts: Expenses incurred for the restoration of the environment following damage caused by a vessel are also recoverable. Restoration is understood in a holistic sense, encompassing not only the physical reconstruction of damaged habitats but also the rehabilitation of ecological functions, the recovery of species populations, and the restoration of ecosystem services. Restoration costs may include the cost of planting mangroves, transplanting corals, removing contaminated sediments, restocking fish populations, and monitoring the effectiveness of restoration measures over an extended period.
Third-Party Losses: Losses suffered by third parties due to environmental damage caused by a vessel can be claimed under this section. This head of claim ensures that the economic ripple effects of environmental harm—including lost income from fishing, aquaculture, tourism, and other marine-dependent industries—do not go uncompensated. Third-party claimants need not prove that they have a proprietary interest in the damaged resources; it is sufficient that they have suffered a financial loss that is directly attributable to the environmental damage.
Ship Arrest for Environmental Damage under the Admiralty Act
Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty Act empowers the arrest of a vessel under specific circumstances related to environmental damage. This can occur when:
Damage has already occurred: Evidence demonstrates that a vessel has caused environmental harm. The standard of proof at the arrest stage is not that the claim must be proven to the court's satisfaction, but rather that there is a good arguable case that the vessel caused, or contributed to, the environmental damage. This lower threshold reflects the urgent nature of many environmental claims, where delay in arresting the vessel may allow the owner to move the vessel out of Indian jurisdiction or dissipate assets that would otherwise be available to satisfy the claim.
Threat of imminent damage exists: There's a credible risk of environmental damage if the vessel is not detained. This aspect of Section 4(1)(u) is particularly important in cases where a vessel is structurally compromised, carrying hazardous cargo, or engaged in suspicious activities that suggest a high risk of pollution. For example, a vessel that has been involved in a collision and is leaking bunker fuel, or a vessel that is attempting to transfer oil without proper authorisation in the EEZ, may be arrested on the ground that it poses an imminent threat to the environment.
The purpose of arresting the vessel is to:
Secure Payment for Damages: Ensure compensation for the environmental harm caused. By arresting the vessel, the claimant obtains security in the form of the vessel or its proceeds of sale, which can be used to satisfy a subsequent judgment in the admiralty proceeding. The arrest also motivates the shipowner to provide alternative security—typically a bank guarantee or a letter of undertaking from a P&I club—to secure the release of the vessel, thereby making funds available for compensation without the need to sell the arrested vessel.
Prevent Further Damage: Halt ongoing or potential environmental damage by the vessel. In cases where a vessel is actively discharging pollutants or is at imminent risk of doing so, arrest allows the court to take control of the vessel, order the cessation of the offending activities, and direct the implementation of preventive measures at the owner's expense. This preventive function of ship arrest is a critical tool for environmental protection, as it allows the legal system to intervene before ecological harm becomes irreversible.
The Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle in Indian Environmental Jurisprudence
The Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle, which are well-established in international environmental law, have been consistently applied by Indian courts in the context of maritime environmental claims. The Polluter Pays Principle dictates that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. In the maritime context, this means that shipowners cannot externalise the environmental costs of their operations—for example, by abandoning a leaking vessel or evading responsibility for cleanup costs—but must internalise those costs as part of their business activities. The Indian judiciary has interpreted the Polluter Pays Principle as requiring not only compensation for actual environmental damage but also the imposition of deterrent penalties to discourage future violations.
The Precautionary Principle encourages proactive measures to prevent environmental harm, even when scientific evidence of potential harm is not conclusive. In the maritime context, this principle supports the arrest of vessels based on a threatened environmental damage, even if the precise timing, severity, or nature of the damage cannot be predicted with certainty. The Kerala High Court's decision in the MSC Akiteta II case, which upheld the arrest of a sister ship based on a threat of pollution from a sunken vessel, is a clear application of the Precautionary Principle in admiralty law.
International Cooperation and Compliance
India's adherence to international conventions reflects its commitment to global environmental standards. Cooperation with international bodies ensures that India's maritime laws remain robust and effective in combating marine pollution. The IOPC Funds have worked closely with the Indian authorities—including the Directorate General of Shipping, the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, and the Indian Coast Guard—to promote awareness of the international liability and compensation regime and to ensure its effective implementation in India. In a series of meetings held in August 2022, the IOPC Funds engaged with the Minister of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, the Director General of the Indian Coast Guard, major oil companies such as Reliance and Nayara Energy, and the Indian Oil Corporation, discussing matters relating to reporting and contributions, the role of the Fund, and the application of the Fund Convention to both claimants and contributors. These interactions have strengthened India's capacity to respond to oil pollution incidents and to secure prompt and fair compensation for victims.
India is also an active participant in the international shipping community's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, and transition to alternative fuels. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted ambitious targets for the reduction of carbon intensity from ships, and India has supported these efforts while also advocating for the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respect for the developmental needs of developing countries. Indian shipyards and shipping companies are increasingly investing in green technologies, including ballast water treatment systems, exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers), and LNG-fuelled vessels, aligning with India's broader commitment to sustainable development and environmental protection.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, includes specific provisions on the reduction of air pollution from ships, the management of ballast water to prevent the introduction of invasive species, and the environmentally sound recycling of ships. These provisions bring India into full compliance with the relevant IMO conventions and position India as a responsible maritime nation that takes its environmental obligations seriously. The Act also establishes a system for the approval of ship recycling facilities in India, ensuring that the dismantling of end-of-life vessels is carried out in a safe and environmentally sound manner, without exposing workers to hazardous materials or releasing pollutants into coastal environments.
Illustrative Scenarios: Applying Section 4(1)(u) in Practice
Oil Spill from a Tanker: A tanker suffers a collision, resulting in an oil spill that damages a nearby coral reef. The government or a designated environmental agency could potentially arrest the tanker under Section 4(1)(u) to recover cleanup costs and compensation for the damaged reef. The claim would include the cost of deploying booms and skimmers, the cost of cleaning oiled shorelines, the cost of rehabilitating oiled wildlife, the cost of assessing the extent of damage to the reef, and the cost of restoring the reef through coral transplantation and other measures. Third-party claimants, including fisheries cooperatives and tourism operators, could also join the admiralty proceeding to recover their losses.
Ship Grounding on a Sensitive Ecosystem: A cargo ship runs aground on a protected mangrove forest, causing significant ecological damage. The authorities could potentially arrest the ship to recover restoration costs and hold the owner accountable. The claim would include the cost of refloating the vessel, the cost of removing any debris or contaminants released during the grounding, the cost of replanting mangroves, the cost of restoring hydrological flows to the mangrove system, and the cost of compensating local communities for lost livelihood opportunities resulting from the damage to the mangroves.
Illegal Oil Transfer in the EEZ: A vessel is intercepted by the Indian Coast Guard while engaging in an unauthorised transfer of oil in the EEZ, using false documents and operating without proper insurance. The vessel is arrested on the ground that it poses a threat of environmental damage, even before any actual pollution has occurred. In the admiralty proceeding, the claimant would seek both the arrest of the vessel and an order from the court directing the owner to provide security for the cost of potential pollution response operations, as well as penalties for violating pollution control regulations.
Abandonment of a Vessel Leaking Hazardous Substances: The crew of a vessel carrying hazardous chemicals abandons the vessel after it begins to leak, leaving the vessel adrift and the cargo at risk of release. Indian authorities arrest the vessel to gain control over it, to arrange for the safe containment or transfer of the hazardous cargo, and to ensure that the owner is held responsible for the costs of these measures. Under Section 4(1)(u), the maritime claim includes not only the cost of the preventive measures but also the loss incurred or likely to be incurred by third parties, such as fishers who are unable to access fishing grounds due to the presence of the leaking vessel.
The Role of Legal Practitioners in Environmental Admiralty Claims
Legal practitioners with expertise in both admiralty law and environmental law play a critical role in the effective implementation of Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, and the related provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025. Experienced admiralty solicitors can advise claimants on the strategic aspects of environmental claims, including the timing and location of vessel arrest, the quantum of security to be sought, the selection of appropriate surveyors and experts, and the interaction between admiralty proceedings and other legal proceedings, such as those before the National Green Tribunal or under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. For shipowners and their insurers, experienced legal counsel can provide guidance on the avoidance of environmental liability through robust compliance programmes, the efficient resolution of environmental claims through the provision of security, and the defence of unjustified or exaggerated claims.
The complexity of maritime environmental claims—which often involve technical issues of marine biology, oceanography, chemistry, and ecology, as well as legal issues under multiple statutes and international conventions—underscores the importance of retaining legal practitioners with deep expertise in this specialised field. The authors of this publication, Dr. Shrikant Pareshnath Hathi and Ms. Binita Hathi, along with their team at BRUS Chambers, Advocates & Solicitors, have been at the forefront of the development of this area of law in India, representing clients in major environmental admiralty claims and contributing to the scholarly literature on maritime environmental protection. As the law continues to evolve, the role of specialised legal practitioners will remain central to ensuring that India's admiralty courts have the benefit of the best available legal arguments and technical evidence in adjudicating environmental claims.
The legislative framework in India, comprising the Admiralty Act, 2017, and the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 (along with the transitional provisions of the 1958 Act that remain applicable for certain matters), provides a robust mechanism for addressing environmental damage caused by maritime activities. The case law, including the recent landmark decisions of the Kerala High Court in the MSC Elsa 3 and MSC Akiteta II matters, further elucidates the application of these laws, demonstrating the judiciary's proactive role in enforcing environmental protection. As maritime activities continue to grow—with increasing volumes of seaborne trade, the expansion of port infrastructure, the development of offshore energy resources, and the emergence of new shipping routes through the Arctic and other sensitive regions—these laws and their effective implementation will be crucial in safeguarding marine ecosystems and ensuring sustainable development. The ability to arrest vessels for environmental damage, the broad scope of compensable claims under Section 4(1)(u), the alignment with international conventions, and the active oversight by Indian High Courts collectively create a legal environment that incentivises responsible maritime operations and provides effective remedies for those who suffer harm from vessel-source pollution.
The maritime industry, for its part, must rise to the challenge of environmental stewardship by adopting best practices, investing in cleaner technologies, training crews in pollution prevention and response, and maintaining adequate insurance and financial security to cover potential liabilities. The legal framework is not intended to be punitive for its own sake, but rather to create a level playing field in which responsible operators are not disadvantaged by those who cut corners on environmental protection. By complying with Indian environmental laws and cooperating with authorities when incidents occur, shipowners can minimise their exposure to liability and contribute to the shared goal of a healthy and productive ocean.
For stakeholders in India's maritime sector—including shipowners, charterers, cargo interests, port authorities, government agencies, insurers, legal practitioners, and coastal communities—understanding the scope and implications of Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, is essential. This provision, together with the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, and India's other environmental and maritime laws, forms a comprehensive system that balances the legitimate interests of the shipping industry with the imperative of protecting the marine environment for present and future generations. The Sixteenth Edition of this publication reflects the latest developments in the law up to April 2026, providing an authoritative and up-to-date resource for all those seeking to navigate the complex intersection of admiralty law and environmental protection in India.
Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, remains a cornerstone of India's legal response to environmental harm from vessels, and its continued evolution through judicial interpretation and legislative refinement will shape the future of maritime environmental protection in the country. The inclusion of this provision in the Admiralty Act, 2017, was a progressive step that India took even before many other maritime nations had similar provisions in their domestic laws, and the experience gained in the almost nine years since the Act's enactment has confirmed the wisdom of this approach. As new challenges emerge—from deep-sea mining to autonomous vessels to the transport of novel hazardous substances—Section 4(1)(u) provides a flexible and principled basis for holding polluters accountable and restoring the environment.