DG Sets on Fishing Vessels Are Solely Powering Illegal LED Fishing: Bombay High Court Pulls Up Fisheries Department for Suppressing Report and Enabling Ecological Destruction

“There is no legislation which prohibits the use of DG sets, yet we have concluded the direct correlation of the DG sets to their use in the banned form of LED fishing”, - In a significant judgment that exposes administrative complicity in illegal and ecologically harmful fishing practices, the Bombay High Court at Goa issued strong directions in PIL . The Court found that despite a ban on LED fishing, bull trawling, and pair trawling, these practices continue unchecked along Goa’s coast, enabled by widespread misuse of DG sets and failure of State enforcement machinery. The Court declared: “The DG sets were not used for safety or refrigeration purposes but were used for powering high intensity LED lights in clear contravention of the ban orders.”

“The Ban Exists on Paper—But Enforcement Is Nonexistent and Evasive”

Despite a 2017 ban by the Union Government and a 2016 notification by the Goa Government prohibiting LED and bull trawling, the Court found that illegal fishing continued with official knowledge and tacit tolerance. It held that reports from Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL), commissioned by the Department of Fisheries itself, clearly established the misuse of DG sets: “None of the vessels inspected by GSL required auxiliary power from DG sets for refrigeration or preservation of catch... their sole purpose was to power banned high-voltage lighting systems.”

Instead of acting on the damning report, the Department of Fisheries sought to suppress it: “This Court finds it deeply troubling that although the report was submitted in January 2024, it was filed before this Court only in August 2024 — a delay of over seven months, which speaks volumes.”

“Despite Legislative Frameworks, There Is No Machinery Worth the Name in Place”

The Court referred to the Coast Guard Act, the Goa Marine Fishing Regulation Act, and the Merchant Shipping Act to assert that the authorities have ample power and obligation to enforce these bans:

“The Coast Guard, State Coastal Police, and Department of Fisheries are all clothed with statutory powers... yet, there is no will to enforce the law.”

Highlighting the inadequacy of the enforcement setup, the Court noted that only one functional patrol boat was available in the State and not a single illegal vessel had been booked under the 2016 notification.

“Ecological Protection Is Not Optional—Depletion of Fish Stock Violates Article 21”

Reaffirming the precautionary principle and sustainable development, the Court declared: “This is not a matter of mere administrative failure. This touches upon the very right to livelihood of traditional fishermen and the ecological integrity of the marine ecosystem.”

“The use of banned fishing practices is a direct violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees a clean and healthy environment.”

“Prayer Clauses (A)(iv)(v)(vi) Are Allowed; Ban Must Be Enforced with Full Rigor”

In a sweeping final order, the High Court ruled: “Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A), (iv), (v) and (vi) in PIL Writ Petition No. 32/2022 and in terms of clauses (A) to (CC) in Writ Petition No. 403/2022.”

These include mandatory inspections of fishing vessels, coordination with the Coast Guard, enforcement of the ban in letter and spirit, and a directive to prohibit operation of non-compliant vessels.

Though the Court stopped short of an outright ban on DG sets, it signaled that such action may follow if misuse continues.

“We make it clear that if the enforcement remains weak or evasive, the Court will not hesitate to consider a complete ban on DG sets on fishing vessels.”

The Bombay High Court’s verdict is a powerful affirmation of judicial resolve in the face of administrative inaction. It acknowledges the environmental, constitutional, and human impact of unsustainable fishing methods and sends a clear message to government authorities: environmental law is not aspirational—it is enforceable. This ruling is a blueprint for responsible governance of marine resources and asserts that the right to life includes the right to sustainable livelihood and ecological balance.

“The Department of Fisheries cannot abdicate its responsibilities while illegal practices destroy the coast. Courts will intervene where executive apathy endangers constitutional rights.”

Date of Decision: 8 May 2025