Case at a Glance
The Master of the tanker MT Unity, anchored at Paradip Port since May 2026 and arrested in three admiralty suits, approached the High Court after wages stopped and the owner and manager walked away from the vessel. Justice R.K. Pattanaik called the abandonment of seafarers “undoubtedly a labour rights violation” and a humanitarian crisis, declared the vessel abandoned and the crew abandoned seafarers under Section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, and held that Article 21 protects foreign seafarers too. The Court directed the Union authorities to immediately take charge, ensure disembarkation and repatriation of the Master and crew with replacement crew, and recover the cost from the owner as a maritime claim.
MT Unity (IMO 9388792) reached Paradip Port on 11 May 2026 and was arrested the same day in ADMLS No. 1 of 2026; it was arrested again on 22 May 2026 and 15 July 2026 in two more admiralty suits. The petitioner, the vessel’s Master, had signed a three-month seafarer’s employment agreement dated 12 March 2026 with the owner and the charterer/manager. There were 22 crew members on board including him. Wages remained unpaid from May 2026, the contracts of sixteen crew members had expired, and the Master’s own contract expired on 12 July 2026.
The Master wrote to the Russian Consulate and Embassy, a seafarers’ union, the P&I Club and the insurer, and repeatedly emailed the owner and manager. The manager said it was no longer associated with the vessel, and the vessel was listed in the ILO-IMO Joint Database of Abandoned Seafarers. After the Shipping Master at Kolkata intervened, the insurer supplied provisions and water and paid outstanding wages, and agreed to bear repatriation costs, but it could not supply replacement crew. The Union argued that an onboard incident created no statutory duty to take over the vessel and that replacement crew was the owner’s responsibility; the Port raised security concerns about a long anchorage near its oil infrastructure and did not object to sign-off, subject to safe-manning requirements.
The Key Question Before the Court
When a foreign-flagged ship is abandoned in an Indian port, are Indian authorities bound to repatriate its foreign crew, and does Article 21 of the Constitution protect those seafarers?
Abandonment is a labour rights violation, and dignity has no nationality
The Court held that on the facts the owner and manager had failed to pay wages and supply essentials, resulting in total abandonment. It declared the vessel abandoned under Section 3(2)(d) and (e) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 and the crew abandoned seafarers under Section 3(1). Under Section 92 of the Act, it held, the Union authorities have a statutory duty to arrange and meet the cost of replacement crew, and that cost is a debt recoverable from the owner or from the sale proceeds of the vessel, enforceable as a maritime claim. The Court added that claims against the owner would be settled in due course, but repatriation could not wait for that.
On Article 21, the Court relied on Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 07 SC CK 0037, National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 01 SC CK 0076 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 01 SC CK 0026 to hold that foreign seafarers are protected and that the right to life means the right to live with dignity, not mere animal existence. It rejected the argument that repatriation was solely a matter for the contracting parties, and held that the insurer’s role is limited to indemnity. The petitioner had also relied on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2 on abandonment) and a Bombay High Court order permitting disembarkation of crew.
What the Court Actually Held
- MT Unity is an abandoned vessel under Section 3(2)(d) and (e) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, and its crew are abandoned seafarers under Section 3(1).
- Abandonment of seafarers is a labour rights violation, and foreign seafarers in India are entitled to the protection of Article 21, including the right to live with dignity.
- Under Section 92 of the Act, the Union authorities must arrange replacement crew; the cost is recoverable from the owner or the sale proceeds of the vessel as a maritime claim.
- The Union authorities (opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5) must immediately take charge, ensure disembarkation and repatriation of the Master and crew with replacement crew, preferably within three weeks of receiving the judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is an early application of the abandonment provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 by a High Court.
- It confirms that constitutional protection of dignity extends to foreign nationals stranded on ships in Indian waters.
- It prevents repatriation of stranded crew from being held hostage to pending admiralty claims against the owner.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Seafarers and Unions
- Record unpaid wages, expired contracts and shortage of provisions, and notify the flag State, consulate, P&I Club and ILO-IMO database early.
- A writ petition under Article 226 can seek repatriation where owners and managers abandon a vessel.
- Repatriation need not wait for the outcome of admiralty suits against the owner.
For Counsel
- Plead Section 3 (abandonment) and Section 92 (replacement crew) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 together with Article 21.
- Join the insurer and port agents to meet non-joinder objections, as the Port raised that plea here.
- Frame the cost of repatriation as a maritime claim against the owner or the sale proceeds.
Key Takeaways
- Non-payment of wages and failure to supply essentials can amount to total abandonment of a vessel.
- Article 21 protects foreign seafarers in India; the right to life is a right to live with dignity.
- Union authorities have a statutory duty under Section 92 to arrange replacement crew and recover the cost from the owner.
- The insurer’s role is limited to indemnity; it does not shift the State’s duty to repatriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an abandoned seafarer?
The Court declared the crew of MT Unity abandoned seafarers under Section 3(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, after finding that the owner and manager stopped paying wages and supplying essentials, resulting in total abandonment of the vessel.
Can foreign nationals invoke Article 21 in an Indian court?
Yes. Relying on Supreme Court rulings including Louis De Raedt v. Union of India and National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Court held that foreign seafarers are protected by Article 21 and its right to live with dignity.
Who pays for repatriation and replacement crew?
The Court directed the Union authorities to arrange it and recover the cost from the owner or its agents as a maritime claim, with the cost of replacement crew recoverable from the owner or the sale proceeds of the vessel under Section 92.
Conclusion
The judgment treats a ship left idle off Paradip not just as a commercial dispute between creditors and owners, but as a human problem: 22 people with expired contracts and unpaid wages. By reading the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 with Article 21, the Court placed responsibility for getting them home on the State, while preserving the right to recover the cost from the owner.
Practical takeaway: Where a foreign vessel is abandoned in an Indian port, crew can seek a writ directing the Union authorities to repatriate them and arrange replacement crew under Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, without waiting for admiralty claims to be decided.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com