By AK Harbola
The conviction of 44 Somali pirates by a Mumbai Special Court on 20 July 2026 under the provisions of the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, marked a significant milestone for both India’s legal system and its maritime law enforcement (MLE) agencies. However, on 27 July 2026, the acquittal of seven accused including six Pakistanis in a separate case involving the alleged smuggling of approximately 235 kg heroin into India via sea route has again highlighted the issue of effectiveness of maritime law enforcement and consequent prosecution.
It may be recalled that in May 2019, the Pakistani fishing vessel Al Madina was intercepted off the Gujarat coast and apprehended in a joint operation conducted by the directorate of revenue intelligence (DRI) and the Indian Coast Guard (ICG). It is understood that during the trial, the prosecution failed to establish the charges “beyond a reasonable doubt” under the relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and other applicable laws. While acquitting the accused, the Special NIA Court observed that ‘although the operation was initiated on the basis of intelligence shared between the DRI and other agencies, the intelligence inputs were not formally recorded in writing’. The Court further noted that the narcotic drugs allegedly thrown into the sea by the accused were not recovered from their ‘conscious possession’. In addition, the officers of the Indian Coast Guard involved in the operation neither ‘photographed nor videographed the recovery of the contraband from the sea’. The Court also said that the prosecution failed to establish the ‘method, equipment, or instruments used to recover the seven bags containing the narcotics from the water’.
This acquittal brings back the issue of understanding and undertaking corrective measures towards a fool-proof maritime law enforcement mechanism. It is equally important to understand the constraints that the maritime law enforcers face and to plug the legal gaps that actually lead to the acquittal of offenders despite their being apprehended almost “red-handed” by maritime agencies.
As far as maritime law enforcement in India is concerned, a number of seagoing agencies are involved in enforcing the provisions of various Acts and prosecuting offenders under various statutes, including the NDPS Act, the Customs Act, the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, and other relevant legislation. The Indian Coast Guard, however, remains the primary maritime law enforcement agency expected to ensure “orderly governance” within the vast expanse of India’s maritime zones and other areas of national maritime interest.
It is also interesting to note that the ICG personnel have been conferred with enforcement powers under different Acts and notifications. The professional competency of the Coast Guard personnel in undertaking daredevil maritime operations is well established, but there exists a weakness in recording evidence to a level that is expected in courts. The reason behind such omissions may be attributed to the focus required to execute high-risk maritime operations, where the collection of evidence unintentionally slips low on the list of immediate priorities. The commanding officer and his team rather focus on ensuring the safety of men and material, preventing the suspects from fleeing and arresting them, recovering the contraband, and finally bringing the arrested persons and their ships/boats safely to the harbour. It is also important to note that, in rough seas and adverse weather conditions, photography or videography may not always be practically feasible. Lastly, notwithstanding the incredible professional credentials of the ICG personnel, the fact remains that they are neither investigating officers by profession nor prosecuting authorities.
In the case of Al-Madina, the operation was conducted in the month of May. It is the time when sea conditions on the western coast of India start becoming rough and unfavourable. During such weather conditions, stabilising a relatively small Fast Patrol Vessel (FPV) class of Coast Guard ship, which is constructed to be light and apt for undertaking interdictions, is a difficult task. These practical limitations, in all probability, may not have been taken into account during the trial. This acquittal, in all likelihood, will be challenged before a higher court, but one cannot deny that this is an unwanted addition to the list of maritime cases in which accused persons have been acquitted by the courts. To name a few, these include the acquittal of the hijackers of ‘MV Alondra Rainbow’ and the crew of ‘MV Seaman Guard Ohio’. Even during the trial of Italian marines in ‘Enrica Lexie’ case, the jurisdiction of Indian courts outside its territorial waters was questioned.
In a large number of countries, including India, the criminal laws have been drafted with a land-centric approach. The trials, as expected, are conducted in strict compliance with ‘what has been written in the laws’. Probably, no cognizance is taken of the constraints and ground realities of enforcing law in oceanic terrain.
The challenges of maritime law enforcement are unique and fundamentally different from those encountered on land. These challenges highlight the need for lawmakers to appreciate the practical limitations of maritime operations, take cognizance of, and appropriately incorporate them in the law. As brought out above, the very nature of the maritime terrain remains one of the many challenges of maritime law enforcement.
Inter-agency coordination is another important dimension of the challenges faced by the multiple stakeholders in the maritime domain. Mutual trust, the expeditious exchange of actionable intelligence, and copybook execution of the operation are the focused priorities. The Court, in this particular case, also observed that the intelligence regarding the smuggling operation had not been formally communicated in writing. Agencies, particularly in jointly conducted operations, do not insist upon formal written communication because, in such operations, from planning till execution, all aspects are discussed together.
Notwithstanding, the enactment of the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, the UAPA, the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, and the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) Act, represent valuable initiatives towards strengthening India’s maritime legal framework, though we still have to sail a long distance before reaching the shores.
It is imperative to establish a fool-proof mechanism for maritime law enforcement. This may take considerable time to become a ground reality, but policymakers must take note of such developments and facilitate the plugging of those procedural and legal gaps in the maritime law enforcement regime, ensuring that successful operations at sea are translated into successful convictions in court.
(The writer is former Coast Guard Commander of Western Seaboard. He is currently associated with Rashtriya Raksha University, Ganghinagar (Gujarat). Views expressed are personal.)
