In Conversation: Adv. Sindhura Polepalli — Practitioner, Maritime Law & Policy Consultant

Introduction

Maritime law in India sits at the intersection of international obligations and domestic regulatory reform. Issues such as IUU fishing, seafarer rights, COVID-era disruptions, and high-profile disputes like Enrica Lexie highlight the doctrinal and institutional challenges India faces in harmonizing UNCLOS, IMO conventions, and domestic statutes. Moreover, arbitration and dispute resolution in maritime contexts demand coherence with global instruments under UNCITRAL while responding to local operational realities.

To explore these developments, SPIL Mumbai is engaging in a conversation with Adv. Sindhura Polepalli—Practitioner, Maritime Law & Policy Consultant. As a practitioner bridging ITLOS, DG Shipping, and academia, Adv. Sindhura Polepalli offers an invaluable perspective on how maritime law must evolve to ensure India’s legal frameworks remain responsive, coherent, and internationally credible.

The Q&A is curated by Lavanya Hajare for the SPIL Blog.

Questions for Adv. Sindhura Polepalli

1.    To begin, In the aftermath of the Enrica Lexie case, how should India approach compulsory dispute settlement under UNCLOS, especially where national jurisdiction and sovereign sensitivities collide with the authority of international tribunals?

The Enrica Lexie case presented India with complex legal and diplomatic challenges concerning sovereign rights and jurisdiction in its maritime zones. It concerned India’s exercise of criminal jurisdiction after two Italian marines aboard the Italian-flagged oil tanker, Enrica Lexie, shot and killed two Indian fishermen on board an Indian fishing vessel, St. Antony, on suspicion of piracy. The incident occurred 20.5 nautical miles off the Indian coast, i.e., within India’s contiguous zone/Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where India exercises sovereign rights over its economic resources.

In my article published in the Indian Journal of International Law, I examined this case in the broader context of India's prospects under the dispute settlement mechanisms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Drawing from the jurisprudence in the Arctic Sunrise and M/V Virginia G cases, the paper highlights that international tribunals have been reluctant or showed limited willingness to uphold law enforcement exclusion under Article 298(1)(b) of UNCLOS, even when the cases related to fiscal/material loss. Given that the Enrica Lexie incident involved human loss, it is likely to attract even stricter scrutiny from international tribunals, despite any such exclusion.

In light of this, India should adopt a carefully calibrated approach to compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS—one that seeks to safeguard national jurisdiction and sovereign sensitivities without relying heavily on jurisdictional exclusions under Article 298. Instead, India should engage constructively with UNCLOS mechanisms, assert its sovereign rights within the framework of international law, and be strategic in its declarations, recognizing that broad opt-outs may not effectively insulate it from international adjudication.

2.    Seafarer welfare during the COVID-19 crisis revealed severe limitations in both national law and international conventions. Should a new binding treaty specifically on crew rights be pursued, and how could it be harmonized with MLC 2006 and UNCLOS obligations?

The MLC 2006 is the key international instrument upholding the rights and welfare of seafarers. While it does not explicitly address pandemics, it contains several provisions that are highly relevant in such situations. These include provisions of the medical care on board and ashore, repatriation and health and safety protection, among others. These collectively guarantee access to medical treatment, safe working conditions, and timely repatriation—core issues during the COVID-19 crisis.

However, the challenge lies not in the adequacy of the MLC’s provisions but in how they are realized in practice at the national enforcement/executive level, particularly at ports for effecting welfare provisions and international coordination. During the pandemic, gaps in enforcement and insufficient international coordination became evident, highlighting shortcomings in implementation rather than legal protections. Therefore, strengthening compliance and ensuring uniform application across jurisdictions is a more urgent priority than negotiating a new treaty.

3.    India is both a coastal and a maritime trading state; how should its domestic legislation be updated to reflect emerging obligations under the BBNJ Agreement, while still protecting national control over marine resources?

The BBNJ Agreement is a new international treaty aimed at conserving and sustainably using marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. While India became a signatory to it since September 2024, it has not yet ratified the treaty as of October 03, 2025.

India’s Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, governs its maritime zones but does not cover the areas addressed by the BBNJ Agreement, which lie beyond India’s national jurisdiction. Prior to ratification, India should enact specialized legislation that provides a domestic framework for fulfilling the requirements of the BBNJ agreement. It appears that the Ministry of Earth Sciences has already set up a 12-member drafting committee for this purpose.

4.    With digitalization transforming global shipping, what challenges arise for India in integrating blockchain bills of lading, smart contracts, and e-port systems into its admiralty and arbitration frameworks, particularly in relation to UNCITRAL and UNCLOS norms?

Speaking from a legislative point of view, 2025 has been a landmark year for maritime legislation in India, with the enactment of the Merchant Shipping Act, Bills of Lading Act, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and the Indian Ports Act, all aiming to modernize India’s maritime framework. While the Indian Ports Act and the Merchant Shipping Act promote digitalization—such as e-filing, digital vessel inspections, and centralized port data systems—they do not yet address technologies like blockchain-based bills of lading or smart contracts. Notably, Section 69 of the Indian Ports Act introduces a port community system for electronic data integration, reflecting initial steps toward digital transformation. However, a comprehensive legal framework for emerging digital contracts in shipping remains to be developed.

5.    IUU fishing continues to threaten Indian livelihoods and ecosystems—should India develop new statutory instruments to regulate it, or would more effective enforcement of UNCLOS Articles 61–73 and FAO Port State Measures suffice?

Absolutely. India already has several laws addressing fishing regulation, including the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981, and various State-level Marine Fishing Regulation Acts (MFRAs). However, these frameworks are outdated and insufficient to tackle the modern and transboundary challenges of IUU fishing.

India has also been working on Indian Marine Fisheries Bill, 2021, which aims to create a comprehensive legal framework for sustainable fisheries management in the EEZ, while protecting the livelihoods of traditional fishers. However, this bill has not yet been enacted.

While better enforcement of UNCLOS Articles 61–73 (on conservation, utilization, and enforcement in the EEZ) and the FAO Port State Measures Agreement is essential, it must be backed by an updated and consolidated domestic legal regime. Modernizing existing laws and enacting the 2021 Bill would significantly strengthen India’s capacity to combat IUU fishing, both within national waters and in international cooperation. However, the 2021 Bill needs to also be reviewed over updates in the past half a decade.

6.    Would the establishment of a specialized national maritime tribunal enhance India’s capacity to resolve disputes concerning marine pollution, seafarer abandonment, and environmental liability, or should High Courts continue under the Admiralty Act framework?

Disputes relating to marine pollution, seafarer abandonment, and environmental liability are serious and can extend beyond the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, to include relevant provisions under the Merchant Shipping Act as well. Moreover, the implications of these disputes extend beyond commercial interests to national safety and security, and the constitutional status of High Courts equips them to address these complex and sensitive matters effectively, particularly in light of fundamental rights and sovereignty.

Besides, the Admiralty Act already extends jurisdiction to multiple High Courts in Indian coastal states—including Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Karnataka, Gujarat, Orissa, Kerala, Hyderabad, and others as notified by the Central Government—which are empowered to handle such disputes. Given this extensive jurisdictional framework, rather than establishing a specialized maritime tribunal, the focus should be on strengthening the capacity of these existing High Courts. This can be achieved through targeted judicial training in maritime law and improved access to technical and scientific expertise during proceedings.

By building judicial expertise within the current admiralty courts, India can ensure consistent, expert adjudication while utilizing existing legal infrastructure, avoiding jurisdictional fragmentation, and preserving judicial accessibility across regions.

7.    India’s coastal security needs often require stricter port-state controls—how can these measures be balanced with freedom of navigation and WTO non-discrimination principles to avoid legal or diplomatic friction?

India can balance stricter port-state controls with freedom of navigation and WTO non-discrimination by ensuring measures are transparent, uniformly applied, proportionate, and based on international standards. Clear criteria and diplomatic engagement will help prevent legal or diplomatic friction while safeguarding coastal security. Besides, based on existing practice, cabotage, i.e., the transport of goods or passengers between two points within India, is already considered an exception from WTO requirements.

8.    Can Indian arbitration centers realistically position themselves as global hubs for maritime dispute resolution, and what procedural or institutional reforms would be necessary to compete with Singapore and London?

Indian arbitration centers can become global hubs for maritime dispute resolution by implementing actionable reforms, such as training arbitrators in maritime and international law, adopting specialized and flexible arbitration rules with strict timelines for speedy resolution, strengthening enforcement mechanisms to ensure swift recognition and execution of awards, investing in modern infrastructure to support virtual hearings and efficient case management, and actively promoting India internationally through maritime conferences and partnerships with global shipping and trade organizations. To ensure a hands-on approach and enhance competitiveness, capacity building of young Indian lawyers in the maritime domain is crucial. Developing specialized training programs, internships, and mentorship opportunities will equip the next generation with the expertise needed to handle complex maritime disputes effectively, further solidifying India’s position as a preferred hub for maritime arbitration.

9.    What role should India’s judiciary play in harmonizing international seafarer rights with constitutional protections of the Indian Constitution?

The response to this largely aligns with the recommendations given for Question 6. Just as with maritime disputes, the judiciary must appreciate the unique positionality of seafarers compared to land-based workers. This requires cultivating judicial understanding and sensitivity to the special vulnerabilities of seafaring communities—who, as essential workers during the pandemic, continued operations despite severe constraints, and who routinely face both human and environmental risks at sea. A rights-based judicial approach, informed by international standards and constitutional protections, is essential to uphold the dignity, safety, and welfare of seafarers. This approach leverages the existing judicial infrastructure while addressing the complex, cross-jurisdictional nature of seafarer rights.

10. What legal and institutional reforms are required for India to domestically incorporate and enforce IMO conventions such as MARPOL and the Ballast Water Management Convention, without imposing excessive compliance burdens on shipping operators?

The Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, already contains provisions to enforce these international instruments. Section 147 of the Act mandates that every vessel, company, or port must be surveyed, audited, and certified for compliance with key international maritime conventions, including MARPOL, the Ballast Water Management Convention, and others.

11. India has historically oscillated between dualist and monist approaches in treaty implementation, what model would best ensure predictability, enforceability, and coherence in the incorporation of international maritime law?

A dualist model is very effective because it ensures that international treaty obligations are explicitly incorporated into domestic law through legislative action, providing legal clarity, democratic legitimacy, and enforceability. In the Indian context, where treaties do not automatically have the force of law, dualism respects the constitutional separation of powers by requiring Parliament to deliberate and enact relevant implementing statutes. This model reduces ambiguity for courts and maritime actors, allows for tailored implementation suited to national priorities, and strengthens compliance by embedding international norms within a clear domestic legal framework.

12. Finally, Given India’s dual role as both a flag state and a coastal state, how should its maritime legal framework reconcile the competing demands of commercial competitiveness, environmental stewardship, and compliance with international adjudicatory outcomes under UNCLOS and related regimes?

To effectively reconcile its obligations as both a flag and coastal state, India must ensure that its legislative, executive, and adjudicatory processes are guided by professionals with specialized expertise in maritime law and governance, rather than relying solely on generalist approaches. This subject-matter depth will help navigate the complex interplay between commercial, environmental, and legal obligations at sea. In addition, India must keep its legislative and executive frameworks regularly updated, drawing on evolving international standards and lessons learned from past maritime experiences to ensure both compliance and strategic autonomy in global maritime affairs.