Introduction

India’s marine fisheries sector is a fundamental component of national coastal governance and the blue economy; however, its regulatory framework remains fragmented. The management of the country’s 11,099-km coastline and expansive Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 2,372,298 km² is shared between the central and state governments. While this dual jurisdiction allows region-specific governance, it often results in inconsistent policy application, regulatory overlaps, and weak enforcement.^[1] The complexity is particularly significant given the sector’s socioeconomic role in supporting over five million marine fishers and their families^[2] and its contribution to national food security, employment, and export earnings.

In 2023–24, India’s marine capture fisheries yielded 3.55 million tonnes, generating export revenues exceeding US$7 billion (≈INR 60,500 crore).^[3] The sector’s direct and indirect contributions are estimated at 1.09 percent of national Gross Value Added (GVA) and 6.7 of agricultural GVA.^[4] Projections suggest that with effective governance reforms, sustainable harvesting practices, and value-chain optimisation,^[5] the sector’s contribution could increase by 30–40 percent over the next decade, enhancing both domestic nutritional security and India’s position in global seafood markets.^[6]

Against this backdrop, the imperative to develop a harmonised, cohesive national framework for marine fisheries’ governance is clear, ensuring that economic expansion under blue-economy ambitions is underpinned by ecological sustainability, the resilience of fishing communities, and the long-term viability of marine ecosystems.

India’s Marine Fisheries Governance: From Colonial Legislation to Contemporary Regulatory Frameworks

In the late nineteenth century, the Indian Fisheries Act of 1897 emerged as the first central legislative framework aimed at curbing destructive fishing practices, such as the use of explosives, across inland and coastal waters, while empowering provincial authorities to regulate gear mesh sizes and seasonal bans. Rooted in colonial priorities, this Act served as the foundational legal scaffold upon which subsequent regional rules were built.^[7]

As mechanised trawl operations expanded, especially along the southwest coast, tensions escalated between traditional small-scale fishers and industrial operators. In response, a committee formed in 1976 issued a Model Marine Fishing Regulation Bill in December 1978. The Bill was circulated to maritime states and Union Territories (UTs) in 1979 for enactment, resulting in state-specific Marine Fishing Regulation Acts (MFRAs) from around 1980, notably in Kerala and Goa.^[8]

Despite central policy efforts, particularly the National Fisheries Policy of 2020, which seeks to coordinate sustainable capture fisheries and aquaculture, implementation largely depends on the sectoral and legislative powers retained by state governments through their respective MFRAs.^[9] Today, India’s EEZ has an estimated potential annual yield of approximately 5.31 million tonnes, while actual marine landings in 2022–23 reached 4.43 million tonnes. However, the sustainability of the fisheries remains linked to zone-wise potential yield estimates. Current assessments show that 91.1 percent of the 135 evaluated fish stocks remain in healthy condition.^[10] These figures, however, reflect stock-assessment classifications for select species; localised stock depletion, ecosystem degradation, and declining productivity in specific fishing grounds indicate spatially uneven exploitation.

Localising Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts (MFRAs)

India's federal structure allows coastal states to frame and implement their own MFRAs according to local ecological, economic, and cultural conditions. However, MFRAs originated from a centrally circulated model framework rather than from independently designed state-level ecological regimes. Subsequent state-level adaptations have therefore been shaped largely by administrative, socioeconomic, and political considerations rather than purely ecological differentiation. Currently, MFRAs play a central role in regulating coastal communities’ access to marine fisheries and preventing overfishing to protect fish stocks and coastal biodiversity. However, this decentralised model has resulted in a patchwork of regulatory frameworks that vary across states and UTs (see Tables 1 and 2).

For example, all nine coastal states and four UTs enforce a 61-day fishing ban covering territorial waters and the EEZ; however, the timing of the ban differs between the east and west coasts to reflect regional monsoon patterns. Tamil Nadu exempts non-motorised traditional fishing vessels, whereas Andhra Pradesh does not (see Table 1). Unlike spatial fishing regulations specified in the Acts, decisions on seasonal closures are taken annually, typically prior to or during the onset of the southwest monsoon (June–September). For the eastern coast, the fishing ban generally extends from 15 April to 15 June every year,^[11] whereas on the western coast, it runs from 1 June to 31 July. In West Bengal, an additional 30-day ban—until 31 August^[12]—is imposed in the Sundarbans region to protect spawning fish populations. Across states, seasonal bans apply only to mechanised and motorised vessels, with non-motorised craft being exempt.

Table 1: Fishing Bans Across States in India in 2025

State/Union Territory	Coast	Ban Period	Duration (Days)	Exemptions and Additional Bans
Tamil Nadu	East	April 15– June 14	61	Traditional non-mechanised vessels
Andhra Pradesh	East	April 15–June 14	61	Traditional non-mechanised vessels
Odisha	East	April 15–June 15	61	Mechanised vessels <8.5 m and non-mechanised vessels using nets with large mesh sizes

West Bengal	East	April 15– June 19	61	Traditional                      non-motorised vessels   Ban extended to 19 June because of rough seas.   Additional 30-day ban on Sundarbans fishing from 1 June to 31 August.
Kerala	West	June 9–July 31	52	Traditional                      non-motorised vessels and those with inboard motors
Andaman        & Nicobar	East	April 15–June 15	61	Traditional                non- motorised vessels
Karnataka	West	June 1– July 31	61	Vessels with onboard or outboard motors of <10 HP
Puducherry	East     West	April 15– June 14     June 1– July 31	61	Non-mechanised traditional vessels
Goa	West	June 1– July 31	61	Registered motorised canoes equipped with outboard or inboard motors of <10 HP using gill nets.
Daman and Diu	West	June 1– July 31	61	Non-motorised      vessels and          those          with inboard/outboard engines <10 HP
Maharashtra	West	June 1– July 31	61	Non-motorised vessels and those                   with inboard/outboard engines <10 HP
Gujarat	West	June 1–July 31	61	Traditional non-motorised vessels
Lakshadweep	West	June 1– July 31	61	Traditional                      non-motorised vessels like catamarans, country boats, and canoes

Source: Author’s Own.

While these bans aim to protect breeding fish populations and allow stock regeneration, their enforcement and scope—including the treatment of small mechanised, non-mechanised, and artisanal vessels—vary widely across states, often creating conflicts.

Gear regulations also vary substantially across states (see Table 2). Some states ban destructive gear like bottom trawls and purse seines in inshore waters, while others permit them under defined/limited conditions. To prevent juvenile catch, several states—including Kerala, Goa, Karnataka, West Bengal, and Maharashtra—have adopted Minimum Legal Size (MLS) rules for specific species. However, implementation remains uneven across states and districts. For example, although the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in fishing is banned across India,^[13] enforcement remains inconsistent.^[14] These disparities undermine the biological objectives of stock conservation and create confusion in enforcement, especially in overlapping fishing zones.

Vessel registration and licensing procedures further illustrate regulatory diversity across states (see Table 2), as well as between state and central authorities. Although the ReALCRaft (Registration and Licensing of Fishing Craft) portal has been established for online applications across India, states continue to issue licences through local offices using digital databases, manual processes, or a combination of both. Such arrangements remain vulnerable to administrative irregularities. This lack of uniformity affects monitoring and oversight, particularly when vessels operate across state boundaries.

Enforcement mechanisms are similarly uneven across India (see Table 2). While some states have patrol boats, surveillance teams, and practise community-based monitoring, others depend on periodic inspections by the Indian Coast Guard and voluntary compliance. Although vessel monitoring systems (VMS) for mechanised and deep-sea fishing vessels are being rolled out, coverage and adoption rates remain low, particularly for its vast fleet of small-scale and artisanal fishers.^[15] VMS can enable real-time tracking, monitoring, and zone enforcement.^[16] Its two-way communication capability can also enhance fisher safety by issuing warnings of impending natural disasters. However, its effectiveness may remain limited without integrated data-sharing across jurisdictions and fisheries staff.

Penalty structures under different MFRAs also vary in severity and consistency (see Table 2). Although all states and UTs impose fines, licence suspensions, loss of subsidies, and seizure of vessels and gear for violations, there is no uniform penal code dictating the extent of these penalties, which may often lead to very different consequences for similar offences. In some regions, political pressures and local conflict resolution practices,^[17] while sometimes effective, may override formal legal processes, reducing deterrence. This ambiguity in regulatory activity undermines the credibility of conservation rules and allows for repeated infractions.

The cumulative effect of these variations in MFRAs is a marine governance landscape that is fragmented.^[18] Without coordination mechanisms, states often pursue isolated regulatory paths, even as many fish stocks, fishers, and market networks transcend state boundaries. As fishing pressure grows and climate variability intensifies, this disjointed regulatory environment poses significant risks to marine resource sustainability and fisher livelihoods. 

Table 2: Variations in MFRAs (States and UTs)

State/UT	Area/Gear      (Mesh       Size                     of                  Net) Regulations	Vessel Licensing	Minimum Legal                           Size (MLS)	Penalty                         Structures                 and Fines
Tamil Nadu[19]	Traditional non-mechanised vessels allowed <5 km.   Mechanised vessels allowed >5 km.     Mesh size restrictions: ≥25 mm for gill nets,              ≥37 mm    for              shrimp              trawl. ≥40 mm for fish trawl nets.	Mandatory registration/licensing for      all             mechanised and motorised crafts.	No                     formal MLS.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 5,000 to INR 1.5 lakh.[20]
Andhra Pradesh[1]	Traditional    non-mechanised   vessels allowed <8 km.   Mechanised    vessels                          <15 m                          allowed >8 km; large vessels (>15 m) allowed >15 km.	Registration/licensing of all vessels regardless of category; zone-based restrictions apply.	No                     formal MLS.	INR 2500 and catch confiscation for not using turtle excluder devices.   Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging

	Mesh size restrictions: ≥15 mm for all fishing nets.   Turtle excluder devices mandatory for trawlers.			from INR 5,000 to five times the value of the catch.
Odisha[2]	Traditional,     non-mechanised     vessels allowed <5 km.   Mechanized      vessels                                    >15 m                                    length allowed >5 km.   Mechanized vessels >15 m length and >25 gross tonnage allowed >10 km.     Turtle excluder devices mandatory for trawlers.	Registration/licensing of all vessels regardless of category; zone-based restrictions apply.	No                     formal MLS.	INR 2,500 and catch confiscation for not using turtle excluder devices.   Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 5,000 to five times the value of the catch.

West Bengal[3]	Traditional, non-mechanised vessels and mechanised vessels <9 m length allowed <8 km.   Vessels between 9–15 m allowed between 8–20 km.   Vessels >15 m length allowed >50 km from shore.   Mesh size restrictions: ≥25 mm for gill nets, ≥37 mm for shrimp trawl; ≥25 mm for                                 seine/drag                           nets.   Turtle excluder devices mandatory for trawlers.	Registration/licensing for all vessels regardless of category; engine- size and zone-based rules apply.	No                     formal MLS, though catching of Hilsa <23 cm is prohibited.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 5,000 (for non- motorised vessels) and INR 10,000 (for motorised vessels) to five times the value of the catch.
Kerala[4]	Traditional,     non-mechanised     vessels allowed <10 km.	Registration/licensing for all vessels regardless of              category;              zone-	MLS     for              58 species.[21]	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging

	Mechanised vessels <25 gross tonnes allowed between 10–20 km from shore.   Mechanised vessels >25 gross tonnes only allowed >25 km from shore.   Mesh size restrictions: trawl nets ≥25 mm for shrimp and ≥35 mm for fish; seine nets ≥10 mm for anchovy and ≥22 mm for mackerel; gill nets ≥33 mm for sardine and ≥50 mm for mackerel.	based                            restrictions apply.		from INR 5,000 to five times the value of the catch.
Andaman and         Nicobar[5]	Traditional       non-mechanised      and mechanised vessels ≤30 HP allowed ≤10 km.     Mechanised vessels >30 HP allowed >10 km	Registration/licensing for all vessels regardless of category; zone-based restrictions apply.	No                     formal MLS.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 250 (small motorised vessels) to INR 2.5               lakh                      (large mechanised trawlers).

	Bottom-trawling/shark fishing banned between April 15–May 31.   Mesh size restrictions: ≥35 mm for trawl nets; ≥25 mm for gill nets, shore seines, and dragnets; ≥20 mm for all fishing nets banned.   Turtle excluder devices mandatory for trawlers.
Karnataka[6]	Traditional/non-mechanised                        vessels allowed      <6 km     or     4 fathom                               depth.   Mechanised vessels <15 m allowed between 6–20 km.   Mechanised vessels >15 m allowed >20 km.	Registration/licensing all vessels regardless of category; zone- based restrictions apply.	MLS                  for                19 species.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 5,000 to five times the value of the catch.

	Mesh size restrictions: trawl nets ≥30 mm.
Puducherry[7]	Traditional/non-mechanised vessels allowed                                                      <4.8 km.   Mechanised vessels to operate >4.8 km and only between 5 a.m. to 9 p.m.   Mesh size restrictions: ≥37 mm for trawl nets, ≥75 mm for wings, ≥40 mm for fish trawl nets.	Registration/licensing all vessels regardless of category; zone-based restrictions apply.	No                     formal MLS.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 1,000 and five times the value of the catch to INR 5,000 and five times the value of the catch.
Goa[8]	Traditional/non-mechanised                                                      vessels allowed                                                                                                            <5 km.   Mechanised vessels to operate >5 km.   Mesh size restrictions: ≥24 mm for any fish nets, ≥20 mm for prawn nets	Registration/licensing all vessels regardless of category; zone- based restrictions apply.	MLS      for                  20 species.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 5,000 to 5 times the value of the catch.

	Total ban on the use of explosives.
Daman and Diu[9]	Traditional/non-mechanised                                                                               vessels allowed                                                   <5 km.   Mechanised vessels to operate >5 km.     Bull or pair trawling and destructive fishing prohibited.   Mesh size restrictions: ≥24 mm for any fish nets, ≥20 mm for prawn nets.   Purse seine/ring fishing prohibited <22 km.	Registration/licensing of all vessels regardless of category; zone-based restrictions apply.	MLS      for      20 species.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 5,000 to five times the value of the catch.
Maharashtra[10]	Traditional vessels allowed in areas <10 fathoms depth.	Registration/licensing all vessels regardless of      category;      zone-	MLS     for     54 species	Penalty up to INR 1 lakh for violating MLS rules.

	Trawling banned in zones <10 fathoms and no trawling is allowed from 6 p.m.– 6 a.m.   Mechanised vessels with engines >six cylinders banned up to 22 km from shore.   Mesh size restrictions: ≥35 mm off the major coast (within territorial waters of Thane, Greater Mumbai, Raigad and Sindhudurg), ≥25 mm in Ratnagiri.	based            restrictions apply.		Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 1,000 (non- motorised vessels) up to INR 20 lakh (motorised vessels for repeated infractions).
Gujarat[11]	Traditional/non-mechanised                                                                               vessels allowed <9 km.   Mechanised     vessels     allowed     >9 km from shore.	Registration/licensing all vessels regardless of category; zone-based restrictions apply.	No              formal MLS.	Fine up to INR 1 lakh for fishermen from other states fishing without permission; additional fine of five times the value of the catch also added.

	Mesh size restrictions: ≥40 mm for trawl nets; ≥150 mm for gill nets.			Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties up to INR 50,000.
Lakshadweep[12]	Traditional/non-mechanised vessels allowed <10 km.   Mechanised vessels allowed >10 km from shore.   Mesh size restrictions: ≥20 mm for purse-seine, ring-seine, pelagic/mid- water/bottom trawl, and shore-seine mesh; ≥50 mm for draft gill nets.	Registration/licensing all vessels regardless of category; zone-based restrictions apply.	No              formal MLS.	Unauthorised fishing may attract penalties ranging from INR 5,000 to 10 times the value of the catch.

Alignment with National and International Frameworks

Reforms in India’s marine fisheries sector are currently underway with the introduction of a comprehensive draft National Fisheries Policy^[22]and the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY).^[23] Nevertheless, the policy remains a draft and may undergo changes before notification. Both initiatives seek to align the nation’s blue economy goals—enhanced productivity and ecological sustainability—while balancing the welfare of coastal communities. Their alignment with state and UT MFRAs, however, remains imperfect, limiting their effectiveness.

The draft National Fisheries Policy 2020 emphasises an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and advocates sustainable harvesting, habitat protection, climate resilience, and participatory governance. It promotes the rationalisation of fishing capacity, adoption of selective fishing gear, management of fishing periods and areas, recovery plans for depleted stocks, development of national guidelines for Minimum Legal Size (MLS), and improvements in post-harvest infrastructure. While many state and UT MFRAs reference sustainability in principle, its translation into practical, real-world actions remains limited. For instance, while all state/UT MFRAs emphasise monitoring, control, and surveillance of fishing vessels to curb overexploitation, none explicitly incorporate ecosystem indicator monitoring to guide marine habitat conservation.

The PMMSY, launched in 2020 with a budget of INR 20,050 crore, is India’s flagship scheme for fisheries’ development. Its targets^[24] include increasing fish production to 22 million tonnes by 2024–2025 and raising the sector’s contribution to agricultural gross value addition to 9 percent. Additional objectives include facilitating private investment and entrepreneurship, reducing post-harvest losses to 10 percent, increasing domestic fish consumption, and generating 55 lakh additional jobs. These goals translate into doubling fishers’ export earnings to INR 1,00,000 crore by 2024–2025 and doubling the incomes of fishers and fish farmers. It aims to promote sustainable practices through investments in cold chains, fishing harbours, aquaculture, and technology. Currently, the PMMSY provides financial support to fishers to replace unsustainable practices by upgrading or modernising vessels and gear. In addition, PMMSY supports fisheries’ management plans and encourages eco-labelling and traceability systems. However, its success depends on coherent implementation by state governments.

Coastal fisheries fall under the jurisdiction of states and Union Territories under Entry 21 of List II of the Constitution, and fisheries governance is primarily guided by state-specific MFRAs. As a centrally sponsored scheme, PMMSY promotes national priorities such as stronger enforcement, improved data collection, and sustainability objectives. However, differences in state-level frameworks, institutional capacities, and interstate coordination create implementation challenges, limiting the translation of these priorities into a cohesive national fisheries governance approach.

India’s international commitments further underscore the need for harmonised fisheries regulations. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), although voluntary and not requiring ratification, has been endorsed by India and informs its national fisheries governance. As India strengthens its blue economy framework, the CCRF’s principles—sustainable harvests, ecosystem-based management, and responsible fishing practices—will need to be systematically integrated into a harmonised regulatory approach.

In parallel, India is assessing the relevance of the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), a legally binding international instrument aimed at preventing, deterring, and eliminating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Although India has not yet signed or ratified the PSMA, accession would require stronger port controls, monitoring mechanisms, and international cooperation to curb IUU fishing and protect marine ecosystems. India’s commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 14 (Life Under Water) further require the conservation of marine ecosystems and the sustainable use of marine resources to be central to marine fisheries policy. These commitments include reducing marine pollution and protecting and restoring coastal and marine ecosystems through climate-resilient, science-based methods. Achieving these goals requires minimising overfishing and IUU fishing while restoring fish stocks to sustainable levels. Inconsistent data collection and varied enforcement^[25] across states/UTs make it difficult to present a unified national performance on these indicators.

India’s blue economy framework, drafted in 2021 by the Ministry of Earth Sciences, pursues similar objectives while also emphasising the security of marine areas and resources. The framework identifies fisheries’ sustainability, coastal and marine tourism, exploration of deep-sea resources for seabed mining,^[26] mangrove and coral reef preservation,^[27] and the modernisation of port infrastructure,^[28] as key areas of development. Achieving these goals requires fisheries governance frameworks across India to be harmonised around core principles such as sustainability and resource conservation, while allowing flexibility to accommodate state-specific fisheries’ contexts.

India's involvement in regional fisheries bodies such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO) is also important for strengthening its blue economy framework. As India assumes the chairmanship of BOBP-IGO in 2025,^[29] it has pledged to promote stronger regional cooperation to strengthen the global blue economy and protect marine ecosystems. Reinforcing its coordination mechanisms between national and regional fisheries policies would enhance India’s credibility and effectiveness in international fisheries diplomacy.

In summary, although India’s national marine policies reflect global sustainability principles and best practices, their impact is weakened by fragmented state-level implementation. Aligning core objectives—particularly those related to sustainability, conservation, data standards, and governance objectives—between state MFRAs and the National Fisheries Policy 2020 is essential to translate these commitments into effective outcomes while still allowing flexibility for local ecological and socioeconomic contexts. Such harmonisation would strengthen the sustainable management of marine resources, improve ecological stewardship, and reinforce India's position as a responsible maritime actor in the global arena.

Fragmented Regulatory Approaches: Challenges

While the diverse natures of India’s coastal state/UT MFRAs reflect local ecological and socioeconomic conditions, it also produces regulatory fragmentation that undermines national sustainability goals. Differences in mesh size rules, species-specific bans, MLS regulations, and enforcement protocols (see Table 2) result in uneven protection of fish stocks and complicate coordinated stock management.

Inconsistent regulations across MFRAs can also erode long-term sustainability. For instance, while Kerala, Karnataka, Goa, and Maharashtra have advanced MLS frameworks and ecosystem-linked management plans in place, other states have yet to adopt such measures. This patchiness undermines national-level conservation outcomes and increases vulnerability to IUU fishing. The Fisheries Survey of India and the Indian Coast Guard^[30] have highlighted recurring instances of trawlers operating in restricted zones, fishing during seasonal bans, or using prohibited gear due to limited surveillance and jurisdictional overlaps.^[31]

From an economic perspective, this fragmented regulatory landscape also constrains the full realisation of PMMSY and broader blue economy objectives. Disjointed regulatory and market practices create uncertainty among fishers and the marine products industry. This reduces competitiveness in export markets, particularly where traceability and sustainability standards—such as mesh-size regulations—vary across states and UTs or are perceived as weekly enforced.^[32]

Limited coordination at the regional level further compounds these challenges. Although regional bodies such as BOBP-IGO recommend strategies for managing transboundary stocks, controlling vessel migration, or responding to ecosystem crises such as algal blooms and climate-induced fish shifts, these are not implemented in real-world scenarios. Due to climate change altering species ranges and productivity, the need for national and international cooperation has never been more urgent.^[33]

The Imperative of Policy Harmonisation

Harmonising state and UT MFRAs with the National Fisheries Policy 2020 is critical for both ecological and economic reasons. At its core, policy harmonisation can support the efficient use of marine resources while enabling scientifically grounded, ecosystem-based management. Aligning rules on mesh sizes, gear usage, and seasonal closures with species’ biological cycles can improve spawning success, reduce juvenile catch, and help maintain marine biodiversity.

A more standardised framework could also strengthen enforcement. At present, variations in surveillance capacity across states contribute to weak implementation of regulations. Zone-based restrictions under different MFRAs are particularly difficult to enforce without a fully operational Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). PMMSY-backed efforts to expand monitoring technologies have improved compliance in some areas, but coverage remains uneven. Coordinated protocols for surveillance, inspection, and penalties could streamline communications between the coastal states’ marine regulatory arms and the Indian Coast Guard. This, in turn, will facilitate the monitoring of fishing vessels in the EEZ to enable swift and decisive responses to violations.

Harmonising fisheries policies could also facilitate the development of a national fisheries certification system and uniform sustainability benchmarks. Such a standardisation would strengthen India’s credibility in global seafood markets by improving traceability and export value chains. This is increasingly important as international markets link seafood imports to environmental and labour compliance standards.^[34] The European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy,^[35] which combines quotas, technical measures, and compliance mechanisms across member states, offers a useful reference point. In India’s case, harmonisation would involve aligning key provisions of state and UT MFRAs with the objectives of the National Fisheries Policy 2020,^[36] to balance local flexibility with broader goals.

Policy Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Establish a national framework to harmonise state and UT MFRAs 

Current Scenario 

India’s coastal states operate under distinct MFRAs with varying provisions on gear restrictions, seasonal bans, licensing systems, and penalties. These disparities produce unequal conservation measures, weak enforcement, and challenges in managing shared fish stocks. Except for seasonal closures, none of the MFRA regulations are strictly enforced. Additionally, interstate conflicts regarding fishing rights, boundary transgressions, and policy inconsistencies weaken the regulation of marine fisheries in India.

Alignment Analysis 

Harmonisation here refers to the deliberate alignment of laws across maritime states to advance national interests. It would involve common principles for sustainability, conservation, data standards, and governance, while allowing flexibility in local implementation based on ecological and socioeconomic contexts. Therefore, ‘harmonisation’ in this aspect does not imply uniformity of all rules (for example, fishing ban periods, which must vary between the East and West coasts due to ecology). Most of the Indian state/UT MFRAs are only partially aligned with the draft National Fisheries Policy 2020, which itself may change with time. Without better alignment between these frameworks, India would find it difficult to uphold its commitments to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, SDG 14.4.1, and PSMA.

Policy Rationale 

Harmonisation is especially useful where issues are national in character (especially regarding sustainability and conservation), but the concerned states are reluctant to adopt common scientific management solutions. A harmonised legal architecture for essential regulations such as MLS, seasonal bans, protected zones, licensing procedures, and penalties needs to be created. This is especially crucial for sustainability and conservation of long-lived, commercially important species to prevent growth overfishing and manage spatially uneven exploitation. This would improve market transparency and ecologically driven management for marine products, especially those species that migrate across state/UT boundaries. It would also enable the creation of a national fisheries certification system and uniform sustainability benchmarks, which would strengthen export value chains to fill the global demand for traceable and certified marine products. Ultimately, these changes would support India’s blue economy strategy by bolstering the resilience of coastal livelihoods while meeting marine sustainability goals.

Implementation Strategy

A phased roadmap could begin with the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (MoFAHD) facilitating an expert working group to review existing MFRAs and draft a Model Marine Fisheries Regulation Bill. The process should incorporate consultation with coastal states, fisher cooperatives, scientific institutions, and legal experts. States could adopt this model as a framework for amending or replacing existing MFRAs while preserving local nuances where ecologically or socio-culturally justified. To promote adoption, the central government may need to revise the National Fisheries Policy to align all stakeholders’ priorities. Fiscal incentives through PMMSY could also be used to support states and UTs that adopt harmonised regulatory frameworks, similar to cooperative federal approaches used in other sectors.

However, without adequate enforcement capacity, harmonised regulations may remain symbolic. Parallel investments in human resources, surveillance infrastructure, and community-based monitoring are crucial to translate regulatory alignment into real-world outcomes.

Recommendation 2: Strengthen enforcement and compliance mechanisms through integrated technology and capacity-building 

Enforcement Gaps 

Enforcement of state and UT MFRAs varies drastically across India. Some states operate well-equipped patrol fleet, while others rely on periodic checks by the Indian Coast Guard or under-resourced district fisheries offices. Zone-based regulations are also difficult to implement without universal vessel tracking and surveillance systems. Penalty structures remain inconsistent, and coordination between enforcement agencies is limited. These gaps weaken timely responses to violations in shared waters. In high-pressure fishing areas, weak oversight often leads to frequent violations of MFRA provisions.

Technology Integration 

Strengthening the VMS and integrating real-time mobile reporting tools could improve surveillance, especially for mechanised and deep-sea vessels. Recent efforts under PMMSY to expand monitoring technologies, including VMS and transponder systems, represent incremental progress, although coverage remains uneven. Integrating these technologies with geo-fencing of protected zones and seasonal closure maps can help in setting up an automated alert system to deter violations. A national fisheries enforcement platform, which could link the Indian Coast Guard, state/UT fisheries departments, and port authorities with each other, could ensure coordinated monitoring across India’s coasts and EEZs.

Capacity Development 

Effective use of technological tools requires trained enforcement personnel across state fisheries departments. Targeted training programmes in fisheries law, digital surveillance, species identification, and community engagement should be developed for enforcement staff. Similar training could be provided to local fisher cooperatives to enable community-based monitoring, especially in artisanal sectors.

Alignment with Blue Economy and PMMSY 

India’s vision for its blue economy and the PMMSY depend on the effective enforcement of national marine policies. This will ensure that the marine fisheries sector growth will not occur at the expense of ecological degradation. With the current scenario of global warming and climate change, all marine resources are under pressure. Therefore, adaptive, technology-enabled governance measures with strong enforcement and compliance mechanisms are essential for future-proofing India's maritime economy.

Conclusion

India’s marine fisheries sector stands at a pivotal juncture. There is a pressing need to review the provisions of the MFRAs in light of evolving technological and socioeconomic conditions in marine fishing. The current fragmented regulatory environment, characterised by diverse MFRAs, risks undermining sustainability, equity, and economic resilience efforts. Without harmonisation measures, inefficient enforcement and compliance issues will weaken both India’s marine conservation measures and its competitiveness in the global market for marine products.

Therefore, harmonising state and UT MFRAs within a national framework aligned with PMMSY, India’s blue economy goals, and global best practices is necessary. Aligning the draft National Fisheries Policy 2020 with the state and UT MFRAs could provide a foundation for more inclusive and sustainable governance. Ensuring enforcement of and compliance with this national framework will need institutional capacity-building and integration of technologies.

In the current turbulent setting of climate change and ecological fragility, India aspires to build a resilient blue economy. To do this, it needs a national marine fisheries policy that is inclusive, adaptive, technologically enabled, and thoughtful; one that balances economic growth with ecological protection to safeguard the ocean’s invaluable but finite bounty for future generations.

---

Vijai Dharmamony is senior manager, Fisheries Programme, at the Environmental Defense India Foundation (EDIF).

---

All views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors, and do not represent the Observer Research Foundation, either in its entirety or its officials and personnel.

Endnotes

^[1] Andhra Pradesh Marine Fishing Regulation Act (1994).

^[2] Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act (1982).

^[3] West Bengal Marine Fishing Regulation Act (1993).

^[4] Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act (1980).

^[5] Andaman and Nicobar Islands Marine Fishing Regulation Act (2003).

^[6] Karnataka Marine Fishing Regulation Act (1986).

^[7] Puducherry Marine Fishing Regulation Act (2008).

^[8] Goa Marine Fishing Regulation (Relaxation of Time Limit for Registration of Vessels) Act (1993).

^[9] Goa, Daman and Diu Marine Fishing Regulation Act (1980).

^[10] Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act (1981).

^[11] Gujarat Marine Fishing Regulation Act (2003).

^[12] Lakshadweep Marine Fishing Regulation Act (2000).

^[1] Vivekanandan, et al., “Marine Fisheries Policy Brief-2; Seasonal Fishing Ban,” CMFRI Special Publication 103 (2010): 1–44; Venkatesh Salagrama,  “Climate Change and Fisheries: Perspectives from Small-Scale Fishing Communities in India on Measures to Protect Life and Livelihood,” International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), 2012.

^[2] “Annual Report 2023,” Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 2024.

^[3] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India,  https://fsi.gov.in/sites/default/files/hand-book-fishery-statistics-document/hofs-2022.pdf.

^[4] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1986155&reg=3&lang=2.

^[5] “The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries. Environment and Development,”  World Bank, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0919-4.

^[6] Bennett et al., “Blue Growth and Blue Justice: Ten Risks and Solutions for the Ocean Economy,” Marine Policy 125 (2021): 104387.

^[7] Aarthi Sridhar, “Science, Law and the Raj: Cultural Fields of Fish (y) Fact,” Environment and History 31, no. 3 (2025): 373–394.

^[8] L. Shenoy and S. Rajpathak, “Regulations for Fisheries and Aquaculture in India. In: Sustainable Blue Revolution in India: Way Forward,” CRC Press, 2021.

^[9] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2039653&reg=3&lang=2.

^[10] “Marine Fish Stock Status of India 2022,” CMFRI,  2023.

^[11] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department of Fisheries, Government of India, https://fddgov.in/uploads/circular/Circular_09072023183908.pdf.

^[12] S. Modak, “Towards an Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries Management Along the Bengal Coast,” Observer Research Foundation, 2021.

^[13] “Despite Ban, LED Light Fishing Still Rampant, Say Fishers,” The Hindu,  2025,  https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/despite-ban-led-light- fishing-still-rampant-say-fishers/article69109690.ece.

^[14] M. Raghuram, “India’s Coastal Crisis: How Light Fishing Threatens Marine Life and Traditional Livelihoods,” Down To Earth,  2025.

^[15] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2044893.

^[16] “One Lakh Fishing Vessels to Get Transponders for Safety Support, Tech to Help Constant Monitoring in High Seas,” Times of India, 2024, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/one-lakh-fishing-vessels-to-get- transponders-for-safety-support-tech-to-help-constant-monitoring-in-high- seas/articleshow/115122860.cms.

^[17] Baiju et al., “Non-State Legal Systems and Their Role in Governance of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries Along the South West Coast of India,” Ocean & Coastal Management 184 (2020): 105020.

^[18] Parappurathu et al., “Taming the Fishing Blues: Reforming the Marine Fishery Regulatory Regime in India,” Economic and Political Weekly (2017): 73-81.

^[19] “Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983,” PRS India, https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/tamil-nadu/1983/1983TN8.pdf.

^[20] “Fishermen Warned Not to Cross IMBL, EEZ,” The Hindu,  2016, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/Fishermen-warned-not-to-cross-IMBL-EEZ/article14547072.ece.

^[21] Mohamed et al., "Minimum Legal Size (MLS) of Capture to Avoid Growth Overfishing of Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish Species of Kerala," Marine Fisheries Information Service; Technical and Extension Series 220 (2014): 3–7.

^[22] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1654543&reg=3&lang=2.

^[23] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2237418&reg=3&lang=2.

^[24] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2237418&reg=3&lang=2.

^[25] “India Falls Short on Nine Sustainable Development Goals: State of States Report 2025,” Down To Earth,  https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/aad-2025-india-lags-in-nine-out- of-16-sustainable-development-goals-finds-state-of-states-report.

^[26] Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1942909.

^[27] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2039653.

^[28] Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/pressreleasepage.aspx?prid=1606138&reg=3&lang=2.

^[29] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2105308.

^[30] “Patrolling and Security Issues. In: Report No. 7–Performance Audit on Role and Functioning of Indian Coast Guard. Audit Reports: Comptroller and Auditor General of India,” Indian Coast Guard,  2011.

^[31] “Bangladeshi Trawlers Caught for Unauthorized Fishing Within Indian Waters,” The New Indian Express,  2024.

^[32] Jose et al., “Traceability Adoption in Dry Fish Supply Chain SMEs in India: Exploring Awareness, Benefits, Drivers and Barriers,” Sādhanā 48, no. 1 (2023): 19.

^[33] “Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report. In: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” IPCC,  2023.

^[34] “FAO: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture,” FAO, 2022.

^[35] “Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),” European Commission, 2023, https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/policy/common-fisheries-policy-cfp_en.

^[36] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1654543&reg=3&lang=2.

• Economics and Finance
• India
• blue economy
• EEZ management
• fish stock assessment
• fisheries governance
• India marine fisheries
• marine ecosystem sustainability
• MFRAs
• National Fisheries Policy 2020
• seafood exports India
• sustainable fisheries

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.