MARITIME DISPUTES IN THE INDIAN OCEAN  2025

AND INDIA’S LEGAL STANCE

The Indian Ocean, a critical region for global trade and geopolitics, is increasingly beset with maritime disputes over territory claims, resource rivalry, and navigational rights. This paper attempts to examine the maritime disputes and challenges, emphasizing India’s legal position and its compliance with international frameworks, notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The paper also looks into the various Indian provisions with respect to maritime zones and disputes. Further, it analyses previous Indian case studies of maritime disputes to better understand the nature of disputes. 

Keywords: 

The Indian Ocean, sometimes known as the “lifeline of international trade,” is an area of enormous geopolitical and economic significance. It facilitates roughly half of the world’s marine trade by connecting Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to global markets. However, the Indian Ocean’s strategic importance has made it a hotspot for territory conflicts, resource rivalry, and geopolitical tensions. Maritime conflicts in the region cover a wide range of concerns, including overlapping territory claims, disagreements over Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), access to undersea resources, and free passage.

India, as a major regional power with wide marine boundaries, is critical in tackling these issues. Its strategic goals include not just defending its sovereignty and marine rights, but also promoting regional stability and cooperation frameworks. India has taken a varied strategy to handling these issues, guided by international legal norms, especially the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This involves bilateral conversations, multilateral interactions, and legal interventions aimed at peacefully resolving issues and fostering a rules-based maritime order.

The research study employs the empirical method of research. The method is chosen for its merits of providing detailed and extensive research on relevant legal frameworks and critical examination of relevant case laws for comprehending practical implications of laws and trends in judicial reasoning. Articles, Bare acts and case laws were reviewed and inferred upon to draw conclusions.

The research paper titled “Law Of The Sea: Territorial Disputes And Maritime Boundaries In The Indian Context, by Raajshree Vardhan, Sushant University”, gives an introduction to Law of the Sea and also its Indian Perspective. The author also lay emphasis on the challenges surrounding Maritime Security in India. 

The research paper titled “India’s Maritime Security Concerns and the Indian Ocean Region, Gopal Suri” examines India’s maritime interest in Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and further looks into the existing maritime framework to better understand the responsibilities of this maritime region.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is also known as UNCLOS. Another term for it is the Law of the Sea. This international convention establishes rules and procedures for using the oceans and seas to safeguard marine life and conserve resources. The treaty was signed on December 10, 1982, at Montego Bay, Jamaica, following the 1973-1982 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It went into effect in 1994. India contributed positively to the discussions that led to the approval of UNCLOS in 1982, and it has been a signatory to the agreement since 1995. As a UNCLOS signatory, India supported the highest level of respect for the treaty, which created the international legal order of the seas and oceans. India also backed open navigation and overflight, as well as unrestricted commerce based on international law principles, as shown by the UNCLOS 1982. India is dedicated to protecting maritime interests and enhancing security in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) in order to promote a secure and prosperous maritime environment.

The UNCLOS splits maritime regions into five major zones:

1. Baseline- The low-water line along the shore is formally acknowledged by the coastal state.
2. Internal Water- The seas on the landward side of the baseline used to determine the territorial sea’s breadth. Each coastal state has full authority over its interior waterways, as well as its land territory.
3. Territorial Sea- The territorial sea stretches up to 12 nautical miles (nm) from its baselines. The territorial sea is under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the coastal nations. These rights apply not just to the surface, but also to the seabed, subsoil, and even the airspace.
4. Contiguous Zone- The contiguous zone extends up to 24 nautical miles from its baselines. It serves as a buffer zone between the territorial sea and the open sea.
   The coastal state has the authority to prohibit and punish violations of fiscal, immigration, sanitary, and customs rules inside its borders and territorial sea. Unlike the territorial sea, the contiguous zone only grants sovereignty to a state on the ocean’s surface and bottom. It does not give air or space rights.
5. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)- Each coastal state may claim an EEZ outside and adjacent to its territorial sea, extending up to 200 nautical miles from its baselines. A coastal state has sovereign rights inside its exclusive economic zone to explore, develop, conserve, and manage natural resources of the seabed and subsoil, whether living or non-living. Rights to engage in activities such as energy generation using water, currents, and wind. It does not provide a coastal state the authority to prohibit or restrict freedom of navigation or overflight, with very few exceptions.
6. High Sea- The ocean surface and water column outside the EEZ are known as the high seas. It is considered “the common heritage of all mankind” and is not subject to national sovereignty. States are allowed to perform operations in these areas as long as they are peaceful, such as transit, marine science, and underwater exploration.

• Legal Provisions in India

1. The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017

The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 was proposed to reform India’s out-of-date British rules controlling maritime interactions and claims. This Act, which takes effect on April 1, 2018, applies to all vessels in Indian territorial waters, with few exclusions for foreign boats operating for non-commercial reasons. It gives all High Courts jurisdiction over marine issues involving vessel ownership disputes, co-ownership conflicts, mortgages, vessel construction, maintenance, conversion, sale, environmental damage, and more.

2. Article 297 of the Constitution 

According to the 40th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, the Union is responsible for administering any laws made by the Indian Parliament regarding territorial seas, continental shelf, EEZ, and other maritime zones, including land and minerals.

3. Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976

In addition to the 40^th amendment, the Central Government of India approved a second legislation defining rights and jurisdictions.

4. Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981

This act aims to improve the license system, prevent illicit fishing, and protect the EEZ’s natural resources.

5. Coast Guard Act, 1978

The Indian Coast Guard (ICG) was established as a search and rescue organization with responsibility over all of India’s territorial seas, including the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and contiguous zone (up to 24 nautical miles) under this legislation.

• Case Studies
• Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP)

FONOP, an acknowledged international principle, allows ships to fly a sovereign state’s flag. Under the principle of freedom of navigation, ships flying a sovereign flag are free to travel without intervention from other nations or governments, unless an exemption is stated under international law (Article 87 of UNCLOS). In April 2021, the US Navy violated the Maritime Zone of India Act, 1976 by performing FONOP in the Indian Ocean and breaching the Exclusive Economic Zone near Lakshadweep, despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This event exemplifies how industrialized countries deliberately target developing nations to display their power and plunder natural resources, disregarding the interests of EEZ states. UNCLOS remains a compromise between developed and poor states.

• China’s Sea Wing Glider Drone

Prior to the epidemic, Indonesia identified four maritime drones launched by China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in early 2019. In December 2020, China deployed an underwater drone glider in the Indian Ocean with the designation “navy intelligence purpose” without addressing the aforementioned issues. The Ladakh standoff problem highlights the deadlock between China and India. According to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative survey, China possesses the Indo-Pacific region’s largest fleet of government research vessels. China’s growth plans pose a direct danger to Indian Ocean and coastline resources.

The Enrica Lexie issue included an international dispute between India and Italy regarding the legal jurisdiction of an event that happened in the Arabian Sea on February 15, 2012. Two Italian marines on the Italian-flagged oil tanker Enrica Lexie shot and killed two Indian fishermen aboard the Indian fishing schooner St. Antony. The Marines mistaken the St. Antony for a pirate vessel.

The Kerela High Court ruled that the two Italian seafarers are responsible and might be subject to Indian jurisdiction. They can be held responsible under the Indian Penal Code. The court further ruled that because the crime happened in the Indian coastal zone, it has the authority to promote peace and order and do everything it deems necessary to protect the rights of India and its residents. The court rejected Italy’s whole argument, noting that the death of the fisherman was horrible on its face. The court ruled that the Italian vessel was performing a commercial activity rather than a sovereign one, and hence the petitioners must pay Rs 1,000,000 to both respondents.

The Supreme Court of India overruled the Kerala High Court’s decision, citing jurisdictional difficulties; the supreme court also allowed the establishment of a special court to deal with such foreign disputes. The court said that any sections of the IPC or CrPC did not provide Kerala the power to trial an offence because it is only a part of India, but rather gave jurisdiction to the Union of India. It said that because the mariners were members of Italy’s royal navy, any issue involving them would involve the Republic of Italy.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration asserted its jurisdiction over India and Italy because both were UNCLOS signatories. The tribunal determined that Italy violated India’s freedom of navigation by shooting on the fishing vessel St. Antony. It also stated that Italy is accountable for compensation for the deaths of Indian fishermen and that India did not breach Articles 97, 87, or 100 of the UNCLOS. Despite the fact that the court urged India to desist from taking any action against Italy, the seamen were granted immunity.

• Katchatheevu Island Dispute

Katchatheevu Island is a tiny, deserted island in the Palk Strait, which connects India’s southeastern coast with Sri Lanka’s northwestern coast. The controversy over Katchatheevu has mostly focused on fishing rights and the access it provides to the abundant fishing grounds in the surrounding waters. Fishermen from both countries have long exploited these seas, resulting in occasional clashes and arrests by both countries’ naval forces for allegedly entering each other’s territorial waters. Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, acknowledged Katchatheevu as a Sri Lankan region as part of the “Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime Agreement” in 1974, which intended to resolve maritime borders in the Palk Strait. The deal permitted Indian fishermen to fish around Katchatheevu and attend the island’s annual St. Anthony’s Festival without a visa. A subsequent agreement in 1976 sought to more precisely define the marine limits, but it did not fully settle the conflicts over fishing rights and imprisonment of fishermen.

• Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project

Another marine impediment to growth is the delay in executing the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project. This project intends to create a passable ship route by dredging and digging via Adam’s Bridge, Palk Bay, and Palk Strait to accommodate vessels of varying draughts. The Government of India launched this initiative in 2004 and reactivated it in 2014. In 2010, it was recommended that concerns of marine security and piracy be addressed in SAARC discussions. For both India and Sri Lanka, the surrounding ocean environment remains of national importance. 

China has increased its footprint in the Indian Ocean region, raising India’s fears. Chinese maintain that their presence in the region is commercially oriented, with the goal of protecting their interests and people outside. China has committed a large number of naval assets to bolster counter-piracy operations in the western Indian Ocean, and it invests and sells armaments to India’s neighbours. China’s primary goal is to acquire ports where its armed forces may establish naval facilities by pursuing commercial and investment ventures with Indian Ocean countries.

India had expanded diplomatic, security, and economic connections with maritime governments in the Indian Ocean Region in order to bolster its economy and promote regional prosperity while also reducing China’s rising attractiveness. India has invested billions of dollars to strengthen its navy and military facilities, upgrade fleets and equipment, and expand security connections. As part of its Act East Policy, it has dispatched vessels to the South China Sea and advocated for freedom of passage and peaceful resolution of territorial disputes.

Bangladesh sought arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) over its maritime boundary with India beginning on October 8, 2009. The hearings ended on December 18, 2013, in The Hague, and focused on a variety of topics such as the placement of the land border endpoint, the delimitation of territorial sea, EEZs, and the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague issued a landmark decision. The United Nations Tribunal granted Bangladesh 19,467 square kilometres of the disputed 25,602 square kilometres in the Bay of Bengal.

This defined the maritime border line between India and Bangladesh throughout the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf inside and beyond 200 nautical miles. Bangladesh’s maritime boundary has been expanded by 118,813 square kilometres as a result of the verdict, which includes a 12 nautical mile territorial sea and an EEZ that extends up to 200 nautical miles into the high seas. Furthermore, the Court recognized Bangladesh’s sovereign rights to seabed resources in the continental shelf, which extends up to 345 nautical miles from the Chittagong coast.

Humans have been studying marine reservoirs since the dawn of time, yet despite tremendous technical advances, we have only realized around half of their potential. Similarly like space, the water and ocean remain unknown for humans. Concerning India’s maritime security, the paper describes the country’s current situation as a valley, with China, a neighboring country, consistently growing its participation in Indian seas for research and development. China’s might and influence make it unlikely that other nations will intervene to prevent an assault on India. China may justify its invasion of the Indian Ocean as part of continuing surveillance efforts. Furthermore, it is critical to watch India’s coastal boundaries and maritime history, as the country already has many maritime conflicts with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. As a result, maintaining India’s global stature requires a thorough and targeted plan. To summarize the discourse, India should adopt an evolutionary strategy and engage in a race of the fittest to ensure maritime security.

1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
2. INDIA CONSTI. art.297 
3. The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, No. 22 of 2017, (Ind.)
4. Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, No. 80 of 1976, (Ind.)
5. Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, No. 42 of 1981, (Ind.)
6. Coast Guard Act, No. 30 of 1978, (Ind.)
7. Suri Gopal. “India’s Maritime Security Concerns and the Indian Ocean Region.” Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, 2016
8. Kush Kumar Gayasen, “India’s Maritime Strategy and the Sino-India Interface N Sathiya Moorthy, “Contextualizing India-Sri Lanka Relations: Present and the Future”, Journal of Indian Ocean Studies, vol 2, (2014)
9. India v. Italy, 2015, ICGJ 499 (ITLOS) 
10. Bangladesh v. India, 2009, 2010-16 (PCA)

Name- Sejal Das

Institution- NMIMS, School of Law,Bengaluru