KERALA SWATHANTHRA MALAYA THOZHLLALI FEDERATION AND ORS. versus KERALA TRAWLNET BOAT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 23-06-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KERALA S\VATHANTHRA MALAYA THOZHlLALI 
A 
FEDERATION AND ORS. 
\'. 
KERALA TRA\VLNET BOAT OPERATORS 
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
JUNE 23, 1994 
jS.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.J 
B 
Kenda A/111inc Fishing Regulation Act 198(}-Sections 2(/i), 4 and 
5---0rdcrs of Kera/a Go\'emment prohibiting bottom trawling altogether for 44 C 
days in 111onsoo11 pc1iod and prcsc1ibi11g specifications for boats entitled to 
~o beyond tenitolial 1vaters for bottonr tra1v/i11g-Held ultra \:ires tlze Act and 
the Constitution-Constitution of 1ndia-Anicles 14 and 19(1)(d) and (g). 
Adn1i11istratii·c Laa'-E..\71ert Con1111i1tee rcpo1ts-Hcld, Goi1en1111e1ll 
entitled to decide 011 tilt' basis of such repons. 
D 
The Respondents are owners and operators of mechanised boats (of 
32 feet length fitted with one engine of 48 to 60 HP) engaged in bottom 
trawling, an activity in which the bottom of the sea is scraped for fish. The 
Government of Kerala by virtue of two orders, viz. Order dated 25-6-1990 E 
and order dated 20-6-1992 sought to redress not only the complaints of 
traditional fishermen that bottom-trawling during monsoon months ad-
versely affects the conservation of fish wealth and their livelihood but also 
sought to implement the recommendations in the reports of expert com-
mittees. 
By the said two notifications, bottom trawling was prohibited al-
together for a period of 44 days in the year 1992. During the remaining 
period of the year, bottom trawling was permitted for all within the 
territorial waters. Further only the boats having a minimum power of 160 
F 
HP and a hull length of not less than 43 feet (carrying a minimum length G 
of 500 metres wire rope In winch drum) were deemed to be capable of 
conducting bottom· trawling beyond territorial waters, which meant that 
boats with lesser horse power or length shall be deemed to be meant for 
bottom trawling only olithln the territorial waters. As a consequence, boats 
not answering this description were not permitted to leave the coast during 
the said 44 days period. 
H 
203 
A 
B 
c 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS Jl994J SUPP. I S.C.R. 
:-\ggrit'\'t'd h)· the aboYt' restrictions, the Respondents filed \Vrit Pt>ti· 
tions in the Kerala f-ligh Court challenging tht' ,·alidity of the said orders 
and contending that tht'ir right to botton1-tra\\'I cannot be takt'n a\\·ay 
altogether ert'n for a limited peridd-(,f4.t da)·s in the year. the: High Court 
allo"'t'd the \\'fit petitions and h~ld th~tt the c;ort'rnn1ent of Kt>rala \\'US not 
competent to prohibit the boats of' the \\'rit petitiont'rs fron1 proceeding to 
sea be~·ond the territorial waters. °The High Court declared that the 
N1itification dated 25-6-1990 void in so far as it specified conditions in 
regard to "any fishing vessel" \\"hich \\'as 'going beyond the tt>rritorial "·aters 
for the purpose of fishing in such area. The State and the Association of 
traditional fishermen appealed to the Supreme Court. 
Allowing the appeals. 
HELD: 1. Reading Entry 57 or List I and Entry 21 of List II togeth.er,., 
the legal position is that control and regulation of fishing and fisheries 
within territorial waters is the exclusive province of the State, whereas 
D beyond the territorial waters, it is the exclusive domain of the U~ion. 
[208-H; 209-A] 
E 
F 
2. The Legislature can create a conclusive presumption of law in 
appropriate situations. So long as the Legislature acts within the sphere 
allotted to it and does not infringe the provisions in Part III of the Con· 
stitution or the constitutional limitations, the law made by it including the 
conclusive presumption created by it cannot be questioned. The orders are 
perfectly warranted by Section 4 of the Kerala Act. Since the said conclusive 
presumption or law and the restrictions created by the First and Second 
Orders respectively is created by the Government in exercise of the 
statutory power conferred upon it, it has to answer the test or reasonable· 
ness, for the added reason that it affects the fundamental right of the writ 
petitioner guaranteed by Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution- and accord-
ing to them their right under Article 19(1)(di also. Therefore these restric· 
tions imposed have to answer the test of reasonableness in clause (6) as 
well as clause (5) of Article 19. Both the said clauses permit reasonable 
G restrictions to be placed upon the respective guaranteed rights "in the 
interests of general public." The restrictions contemplated by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.