Wednesday, 2nd July 2014
By K.T.Sangameswaran
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has reiterated before the Madras High Court that the maritime boundary issue between India and Sri Lanka, and consequently sovereignty over the Katchatheevu island, is a settled matter.
The previous Congress-led UPA government had taken a similar stand on the issue.
In an affidavit filed in response to petitions by a fishermen organisation, Vishwesh Negi, a Deputy Secretary of the Ministry, said that under the 1974 and 1976 agreements between the two countries, fishermen were allowed to fish on their side of the IMBL, and they should not cross over to the waters of the other country for exploiting the resources.
Fisherman Care of Pallavaram filed the petitions in 2012, seeking a directive to the Centre to clarify the then External Affairs Minister’s statement in Parliament on August 22, 2013 on Tamil Nadu fishermen crossing the IMBL.
The Minister had said that under the agreements, Indian fishermen were allowed to fish on the Indian side of the IMBL, but not to cross over to the waters of the other country for exploiting resources. However, he said, Sri Lanka had alleged that a large number of Indian fishing vessels entered its waters.
The organisation also sought a directive to the Centre to take diplomatic steps to secure the release of Tamil Nadu fishermen languishing in Sri Lankan jails.
It also wanted the authorities to take up the issue of frequent attacks on Indian fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy with the island government and find a permanent solution to the problem.
The Ministry said no fishing rights in Sri Lankan waters were bestowed on Tamil Nadu fishermen under the agreements.
They provided for access to Katchatheevu for rest, drying of nets and for the annual St. Anthony’s festival.
The 1974 agreement spoke only of the “traditional rights of vessels, not fishermen.”
Untenable
To interpret this provision to include the fishing rights of Indian fishermen around the island was untenable, the MEA said.
The First Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice, Satish K. Agnihotri, and Justice M.M. Sundresh, posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
