What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

Examiners may confuse the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 (State law) with the EEZ Rules, 2025 (Central law), or swap the constitutional entries (e.g., attributing Entry 21 to the Union). Also, the 'specified channel' is for transit, not for fishing within territorial waters.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: Only 6 access passes issued out of 257 applications on ReALCRaft Portal as on August 3, 2026. 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe. 3. Target this Legal Point: Entry 57 (List I – Union) and Entry 21 (List II – State) of the Constitution regarding fishing regulation.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 13 of 24

SC Directs TN on Fishing Vessel Transit Rules Under Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020

Q: Which constitutional entry empowers the Union government to regulate fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters?

Entry 57 of List I, The Supreme Court judgment specifically mentions Entry 57 of List I (Union List) as the constitutional basis for the Centre's power to regulate fishing beyond territorial waters. Entry 21 of List II pertains to fisheries within territorial waters, which is a State subject.

Q: Consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court directed Tamil Nadu to create a 'specified channel' for fishing vessel transit under the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. 2. The court held that the EEZ Rules, 2025 and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 are in conflict and the State law must prevail. 3. Only 6 access passes were issued out of 257 applications on the ReALCRaft Portal as on August 3, 2026. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: The SC directed Tamil Nadu to frame rules for a specified channel under the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. Statement 2 is incorrect: The court found no conflict between the two laws and upheld both as co-equal. Statement 3 is correct: Only 6 access passes were issued out of 257 applications.

Q: How many access passes were issued to fishing vessels under the EEZ Rules, 2025 as on August 3, 2026, according to the Supreme Court?

6, The Supreme Court noted that only 6 access passes were issued out of 257 total applications made on the ReALCRaft Portal as on August 3, 2026, calling this the lowest among all coastal states.

Q: What is the primary objective of the Supreme Court's direction to Tamil Nadu regarding the 'specified channel' for fishing vessels?

To allow fishing vessels to transit through territorial waters to the EEZ without fishing there, The 'specified channel' is intended to allow vessels carrying purse seine nets to pass through Tamil Nadu's territorial waters to reach the EEZ for fishing, without fishing within the 12 nautical mile zone where the State's ban applies.

Polity EnvironmentCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCSSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains MediumStatic GK Link

02 Sept 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:6 access passes issued257 applicationsAugust 3, 2026Entry 57 List IEntry 21 List IIMarine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020

Bodies:Supreme CourtTamil Nadu GovernmentUnion Government

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.SC directs Tamil Nadu to frame rules for a 'specified channel' for fishing vessel transit from territorial waters to EEZ under Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020.

2.The court upheld the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 (regulating fishing within territorial waters) and the Central EEZ Rules, 2025 (regulating fishing beyond 12 nautical miles).

3.Only 6 access passes were issued out of 257 applications on the ReALCRaft Portal, showing poor coordination between Union and State authorities.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · Medium

The Supreme Court has directed Tamil Nadu to create a 'specified channel' for fishing vessels transiting to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020. This judgment upholds both State and Central laws governing purse seine fishing, emphasizing co-operative federalism and addressing the conflict between territorial waters regulation and EEZ access.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Date of JudgmentSeptember 2, 2026

BenchJustices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

State LawTamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020

Central LawEEZ Rules, 2025 (Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in EEZ)

Access Passes Issued (as on Aug 3)6 out of 257 applications

PortalReALCRaft Portal (Registration and Licensing of Fishing Craft)

Constitutional EntriesEntry 57 (List I) – Union; Entry 21 (List II) – State

1-Minute Revision

›Date of Judgment: September 2, 2026
›Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe
›Target this Data: Only 6 access passes issued out of 257 applications on ReALCRaft Portal as on August 3, 2026.
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.
›Target this Legal Point: Entry 57 (List I – Union) and Entry 21 (List II – State) of the Constitution regarding fishing regulation.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

SC Orders Specified Channel for Fishing Vessels

Supreme Court directs Tamil Nadu to create an official navigation corridor under the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 for vessels transiting to the EEZ.

📢

Upholds Both State and Central Laws

The court held that the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 and the Central EEZ Rules, 2025 are valid and co-exist without conflict.

🔄

Co-operative Federalism Emphasised

The court urged the Union and State to coordinate effectively, noting only 6 of 257 access pass applications were processed in Tamil Nadu.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Tamil Nadu had prohibited pair trawling and purse seine fishing within its territorial waters (0-12 nautical miles) since March 2000 as a conservation measure. The Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 were notified to enforce this ban. However, fishermen argued they should be allowed to carry purse seine nets through territorial waters to fish in the EEZ (beyond 12 nautical miles), where State jurisdiction ends and Union laws apply. This created a regulatory conflict.

Core Analysis & Implications

The Supreme Court resolved the conflict by recognizing that both the State (under Entry 21, List II) and the Union (under Entry 57, List I) have co-equal legislative powers in their respective spheres. The court directed Tamil Nadu to create a 'specified channel' under the 2020 Rules for transit, ensuring that vessels carrying purse seine nets can pass through territorial waters without fishing there. This balances conservation concerns with the right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g).

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Tamil Nadu must now frame rules for the 'specified channel' and expedite verification of access pass applications on the ReALCRaft Portal. The court's emphasis on co-operative federalism suggests that similar disputes in other coastal states may be resolved by adopting a coordinated regulatory framework. Timely processing of applications is crucial to avoid an 'unwritten ban' on fishing in the EEZ.

Key Facts at a Glance

Date of JudgmentSeptember 2, 2026

BenchJustices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

State LawTamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020

Central LawEEZ Rules, 2025 (Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in EEZ)

Access Passes Issued (as on Aug 3)6 out of 257 applications

PortalReALCRaft Portal (Registration and Licensing of Fishing Craft)

Constitutional EntriesEntry 57 (List I) – Union; Entry 21 (List II) – State

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which constitutional entry empowers the Union government to regulate fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements:

1. The Supreme Court directed Tamil Nadu to create a 'specified channel' for fishing vessel transit under the Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020.

2. The court held that the EEZ Rules, 2025 and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 are in conflict and the State law must prevail.

3. Only 6 access passes were issued out of 257 applications on the ReALCRaft Portal as on August 3, 2026.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

How many access passes were issued to fishing vessels under the EEZ Rules, 2025 as on August 3, 2026, according to the Supreme Court?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

What is the primary objective of the Supreme Court's direction to Tamil Nadu regarding the 'specified channel' for fishing vessels?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →EnvironmentView Topic MCQs →

PreviousFirst Step Towards Universal Pneumococcal Vaccine ZPY-CpG-Ch: 80-100% Survival in Mice Next SC Rules BCI Cannot Discipline Law Students Before Enrolment Under Advocates Act 1961

Related Current Affairs

Environment Current Affairs

SC Directs Disconnection of Power/Water for Non-Compliant Bulk Waste Generators Under SWM Rules 2026

The Supreme Court has empowered District Collectors to order temporary disconnection of power and water supply for Bulk Waste Generators (BWGs) that fail to comply with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026. This landmark directive also mandates integrating waste management education into school and college curricula, making students 'household-level supervisors' for rule implementation.

Environment Current Affairs

SC Directs Environment Ministry to Create Guidelines for Environmental Compensation Under SWM Rules 2026

The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to create comprehensive guidelines for imposing and collecting environmental compensation for violations of the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2026. The new rules, effective April 1, 2026, replace the 2016 rules and aim to improve segregation, curb landfill dependency, and promote a circular economy, but implementation remains a major challenge due to poor data integrity and lack of verification.

Environment Current Affairs

SC Directs Eviction in Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve; FRA Implementation Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court has ordered time-bound eviction of encroachments in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve based on CEC reports, while the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 — meant to protect forest-dweller rights — continues to be bypassed by authorities. This clash between conservation and tribal rights is a high-probability topic for UPSC GS2 (governance) and GS3 (environment).

Polity Current Affairs

TN Complains to SC on Kerala's Stalling of Mullaperiyar Dam Strengthening (142 ft Water Level)

Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court alleging Kerala's obstructionist attitude in implementing the 2014 SC order allowing TN to raise Mullaperiyar dam water level to 142 feet. The delay in strengthening works (baby dam, earth dam, grouting) raises safety concerns. This inter-state water dispute has implications for federal relations and dam safety protocols.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Sets Aside NGT Order on Art of Living, Directs DDA to Refund ₹5 Crore Compensation

The Supreme Court has set aside a 2017 NGT order that held the Art of Living Foundation responsible for damaging the Yamuna floodplains during its 2016 World Culture Festival. The Court directed the DDA to refund the ₹5 crore environmental compensation deposited by the foundation, while also ordering DDA to continue floodplain rehabilitation work.

Environment Current Affairs

SC Vanashakti Verdict: Prior EC Mandatory, Govt May Frame Fresh Violation Mechanism Under EPA Section 3

The Supreme Court's Vanashakti judgment (July 29, 2026) reaffirms that prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is mandatory under the EIA Notification 2006. It closes the old violation regularisation routes (2017 Notification & 2021 Office Memorandum) but leaves room for the central government to frame a fresh statutory mechanism under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for a one-time, environment-friendly resolution of legacy violation projects.

Polity Current Affairs

MoTA States Forest Rights Act 2006 Has No Provision for Gram Sabha Consent for Forest Clearance

The Forest Rights Act 2006 is being systematically weakened as the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) now states that the Act has no provision for gram sabha consent for forest clearance, directly contradicting its constitutional duty and the 2013 Supreme Court Niyamgiri judgment. A parliamentary committee has proposed allowing 70-75% gram sabha consent for large hydropower projects, further eroding tribal rights in favor of infrastructure development.

Environment Current Affairs

Supreme Court Allows Narrow Post-Facto Environment Clearance Amnesty, Sets Aside 2021 OM

The Supreme Court struck down the 2021 Office Memorandum that allowed blanket regularisation of projects without prior environmental clearance. However, it permitted a narrowly tailored amnesty scheme if justified by compelling public interest, shifting from its earlier absolute ban. This judgment reinforces the precautionary principle and proportionality, requiring the government to demonstrate necessity and weigh environmental costs.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

SC Directs TN on Fishing Vessel Transit Rules Under Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

SC Orders Specified Channel for Fishing Vessels

Upholds Both State and Central Laws

Co-operative Federalism Emphasised

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance