Maritime Casualty off the Indian Coast: A Comprehensive Analysis of Procedural and Legal Obligations under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958

Introduction

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the procedural and legal obligations that arise following a significant maritime casualty in Indian waters. The scenario under consideration involves a collision between an Indian-flagged vessel and another vessel off the coast of India, resulting in the tragic loss of human life, substantial damage to the vessels, and a consequential oil spill that threatens the marine environment. Such a multi-faceted incident triggers a complex and coordinated response from the coastal state, governed by a robust framework of domestic law and international conventions.

The cornerstone of India’s maritime legal regime is the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (MS Act).1 This comprehensive statute serves as the primary instrument governing all aspects of merchant shipping, from the registration and certification of vessels to the intricate rules concerning safety, collisions, pollution prevention, liability, and casualty investigations.4 The Act is not merely a domestic law; it is the principal vehicle through which India gives effect to its obligations as a signatory to major international maritime treaties, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs).6

The response to a casualty of this magnitude is not monolithic but is executed by a triumvirate of key state authorities, each with a distinct but complementary mandate. The Directorate General of Shipping (DG Shipping), as the apex maritime administrator, is responsible for overall policy, legislation, and supervision of the MS Act’s implementation.6 The

Indian Coast Guard (ICG) is the designated Central Coordinating Authority for marine pollution response and search and rescue, acting as the state’s primary operational arm at sea.12 Finally, the

Mercantile Marine Department (MMD) functions as the field-level agency of the DG Shipping, responsible for on-ground surveys, inspections, and the critical initial stages of casualty investigation.14

Understanding the precise roles, responsibilities, and procedural sequences initiated by these bodies under the MS Act is paramount for all stakeholders, including shipowners, charterers, insurers (P&I Clubs), and legal representatives. This report aims to provide that clarity, dissecting the legal and procedural steps from the moment of impact to the final resolution of liability and compensation. To provide an immediate overview of the division of responsibilities, the following table summarizes the primary authorities and governing instruments for each aspect of the incident.

I. Immediate On-Scene Obligations and Actions

In the chaotic aftermath of a collision, the actions taken by the ship’s master and the initiation of life-saving operations are governed by strict statutory duties. These initial steps are critical not only for the preservation of life and property but also for establishing the evidentiary foundation for all subsequent investigations and legal proceedings.

A. The Master’s Statutory Duties Post-Collision (Section 348, MS Act)

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, places a direct and non-delegable burden of responsibility on the master of each vessel involved in a collision. These duties, enshrined in Section 348 of the Act, are paramount.

First is the duty to render assistance. Section 348(a) mandates that the master or person in charge of each ship must render “such assistance as may be practicable and may be necessary to save them from any danger caused by the collision”.19 This includes providing aid to the other vessel, its master, crew, and any passengers. The duty extends to staying by the other ship until it is ascertained that no further assistance is required.19 This obligation is a cornerstone of international maritime custom, codified to ensure that the immediate preservation of human life takes precedence.

Second is the duty to exchange information. Under Section 348(b), the master must provide the other vessel with the name of their own ship, its port of registry, and the ports from which it has come and to which it is bound.19 This exchange is vital for establishing the identity of the parties involved and facilitating communication for subsequent legal and administrative follow-up.

These statutory duties must be executed under the master’s overriding authority and responsibility for their own vessel.22 The Act provides a critical qualifier to the duty to assist: it must be performed only “if and so far as he can do so without danger to his own ship, crew and passengers”.19 This clause places the master in a position of immediate and high-stakes triage. In the seconds and minutes following a collision, with potential structural damage, flooding, or fire on their own vessel, the master must make a rapid and difficult judgment call. The decision to render aid, and the extent of that aid, must be balanced against the primary responsibility to ensure the safety of their own command. This decision-making process is not merely operational; it carries profound legal weight. A decision not to assist, if later deemed by an inquiry to have been unreasonable, could lead to severe penalties. Conversely, rendering assistance in a manner that jeopardizes one’s own vessel could be construed as a failure in the master’s fundamental duty of care. This creates a significant legal and professional pressure point, where the master’s on-the-spot assessment will be subject to intense scrutiny in any subsequent investigation.

B. Initial Reporting and Logging Requirements (Sections 349 & 350, MS Act)

The MS Act mandates a clear and immediate documentation trail following a collision. This is not a mere administrative formality but a crucial step in preserving evidence.

Under Section 349, the master of every ship involved must, “immediately after the occurrence,” cause a detailed statement of the collision and its circumstances to be entered into the vessel’s official log book.19 This entry must be signed by the master and also by the mate or another crew member. The official log book is a primary legal document, and this contemporaneous record becomes a cornerstone of evidence for investigators.

Furthermore, Section 350 imposes a mandatory reporting duty to the coastal state. When an accident results in loss of life, serious injury to any person, or has caused material damage affecting the ship’s seaworthiness or efficiency, the owner or master is obligated to transmit a report of the accident and its probable cause to the Central Government (a power delegated to the DG Shipping) or the nearest Principal Officer of the Mercantile Marine Department.19 This report must be sent “within twenty-four hours after the happening of the accident or as soon as possible thereafter.” This formal notification is the official trigger that sets the state’s investigative machinery in motion. In the worst-case scenario where a ship is feared to be wholly lost, Section 351 requires the owner or agent to send a formal notice of the apprehended loss to the Central Government.19

The period immediately following the collision can be considered the “golden hour” for evidence. The accuracy, detail, and timeliness of the log book entry under Section 349 and the accident report under Section 350 are of paramount importance. These documents constitute the first official records of the incident from the perspective of those involved. Their content will inevitably shape the narrative and direction of the ensuing Preliminary Inquiry, during which the MMD officer will demand the production of “all logbooks, documents or papers”.14 Any delay, vagueness, or inconsistency in these initial reports can be interpreted by authorities not just as poor record-keeping, but potentially as an attempt to obfuscate facts, thereby inviting a more intensive and adversarial investigation.

C. Search and Rescue (SAR) Coordination for Loss of Life

Maritime Casualty off the Indian Coast: A Comprehensive Analysis of Procedural and Legal Obligations under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958

While the masters of the colliding vessels have an immediate duty to assist, a major incident involving loss of life will trigger a large-scale, coordinated Search and Rescue (SAR) operation led by the coastal state.

India’s obligation to provide SAR services stems from its status as a signatory to the SOLAS Convention. Specifically, Chapter V, Regulation 7, requires contracting governments to “ensure that necessary arrangements are made for coast watching and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea round its coasts”.23 This international treaty obligation is implemented through domestic law and operational frameworks.

The Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Rules, 1997, and various circulars issued by the DG Shipping provide the domestic legal basis for SAR operations.18 Operationally, the Indian Coast Guard is the primary coordinating agency for maritime SAR, working in conjunction with the Indian Navy.14 The ICG operates Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centers (MRCCs) along the coast, which act as the nodal points for receiving distress alerts and directing rescue assets.24 In addition to the specific duty to assist after a collision, Section 355A of the MS Act imposes a broader, general obligation on a master of an Indian ship to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost, reinforcing the humanitarian principles of maritime law.25

II. Marine Environment Protection: The Oil Spill Response

The oil spill resulting from the collision initiates a distinct but parallel stream of actions focused on environmental protection. This response is governed by a well-defined national plan and led by a designated authority, operating under powers granted by the MS Act.

A. Activation of the National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (NOSDCP)

The primary blueprint for managing a major oil spill in Indian waters is the National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (NOSDCP).12 First approved in 1993 and comprehensively revised in 2015 to reflect current international norms and best practices, the NOSDCP provides a detailed operational and organizational framework that integrates the resources of the Central Government, the Indian Coast Guard, port authorities, and the oil industry.12 The legal authority for the plan and the actions taken under it are firmly rooted in the Coast Guard Act, 1978, and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, the latter of which empowers ICG officers to take necessary actions against polluters.12

B. The Central Coordinating Authority: Role of the Indian Coast Guard (ICG)

In 1986, the Indian Coast Guard was formally nominated as the “Central Coordinating Authority” for oil spill response within India’s Maritime Zones.12 This designation makes the ICG the undisputed lead operational agency responsible for directing all at-sea efforts to contain and recover the spilled oil.

For any spill that occurs outside of designated port limits, the ICG assumes the critical role of On-Scene Commander (OSC).31 In this capacity, the ICG directs and coordinates all sea-based cleanup activities. This includes deploying aircraft for aerial surveillance to assess the extent and movement of the slick, mobilizing and directing specialized Pollution Response Vessels (PRVs), and providing technical advice to all participating agencies.31 To support this mandate, the ICG maintains dedicated Pollution Response Centres at strategic locations like Mumbai, Chennai, Port Blair, and Vadinar, and regularly conducts National Level Pollution Response Exercises (NATPOLREX) to hone its capabilities and ensure inter-agency coordination.13

C. The Tiered Response Framework: Delineating Responsibilities

The NOSDCP is structured around an internationally recognized tiered response system. This system classifies the severity of a spill and allocates responsibilities and resources accordingly, ensuring a scalable and efficient response.26

• Tier-1 (Local Level): This tier addresses small spills (often cited as up to 700 tons) that can be managed with local resources. The responsibility for a Tier-1 response lies with the specific port authority if the spill is within port limits, or with the oil handling agency if the spill is within 500 meters of their offshore installation or terminal.12
• Tier-2 (Regional Level): When a spill exceeds local capabilities, it is escalated to Tier-2. This requires a coordinated regional response, for which the ICG takes charge as the Regional On-Scene Commander. The ICG mobilizes resources from multiple sources within its region, including assets from various ports and oil companies under mutual aid agreements.24
• Tier-3 (National Level): This is reserved for major spills of a disaster scale that overwhelm regional resources. A Tier-3 response requires the mobilization of substantial national assets and potentially international assistance. The ICG, in its capacity as the national Central Coordinating Authority, manages the entire operation, activating the full scope of the NOSDCP.24

A critical element across all tiers is shoreline cleanup. Should the oil reach or threaten the coast, the responsibility for cleaning the shoreline rests with the administration of the affected coastal State or Union Territory.12 The ICG provides technical support and coordinates with the State Disaster Management Authority to ensure this aspect of the response is handled effectively.33

The following table provides a clear breakdown of the tiered responsibility matrix under the NOSDCP.

D. Powers of the Central Government for Pollution Containment (Part XIA, MS Act)

Part XIA of the MS Act, titled “Prevention and Containment of Pollution of the Sea by Oil,” provides the Central Government with robust statutory powers to manage pollution incidents.1 Acting through its designated agencies like the ICG and DG Shipping, the government can take decisive action.

Section 356J of the Act is particularly potent. It allows the government, upon being satisfied that oil is escaping or is likely to escape and threatens the Indian coast, to issue a notice to the owner, master, or agent of the polluting vessel.36 This notice can require specific actions, such as preventing the further escape of oil, undertaking measures to remove the oil slick from the sea surface, or even directing the removal of the damaged vessel to a specified location.36 The government also has the power to detain a ship that has caused pollution and, if the owner fails to comply with directives, to intervene directly and undertake the necessary measures, recovering the costs incurred from the owner.36

The management of a major maritime casualty operates on a dual-track system. The casualty investigation, focused on cause and fault, is led by the MMD and DG Shipping. In parallel, the pollution response, focused on containment and cleanup, is led by the ICG. While these tracks are organizationally distinct, they are deeply interconnected. The evidence gathered during the pollution response—such as oil samples, aerial imagery of the slick’s trajectory, and records of cleanup costs—is absolutely critical for the legal track. This data forms the basis for establishing liability and quantifying damages under the civil liability regime in Part XB of the MS Act. This implies that for the overall state response to be successful, there must be a seamless and institutionalized channel for data and evidence sharing between the operational commanders at the ICG and the investigators and administrators at the MMD and DG Shipping.

Furthermore, while the NOSDCP provides a comprehensive framework on paper, its real-world effectiveness can be influenced by on-ground realities. Analysis indicates potential gaps between the plan and its implementation. There are reports of weak enforcement mechanisms, fragmented institutional oversight, and the plan itself being in need of updates.40 Audit reports have previously highlighted a lack of dedicated Pollution Control Vessels (PCVs), which would directly impact the ICG’s response capacity.34 Moreover, official meetings have noted that many coastal states have not yet fully integrated oil spill response into their state-level disaster management plans, which could create significant bottlenecks during the critical shoreline cleanup phase.41 For any stakeholder involved, this suggests that relying solely on the text of the NOSDCP without considering these potential operational constraints would be a strategic error. It points to the possibility of real-world delays and inefficiencies despite the well-defined plan.

III. The Investigative Framework for Maritime Casualties

Distinct from the operational response to the oil spill is the formal process of investigating the cause of the collision. This is a methodical, evidence-based process led by the maritime administration to determine not only what happened, but why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again.

A. The Role of the Mercantile Marine Department (MMD)

The Mercantile Marine Department (MMD), operating under the overarching authority of the DG Shipping, is the primary state agency responsible for conducting inquiries into shipping casualties in India.14 The MMD’s Principal Officers and Surveyors at various coastal districts are empowered by the MS Act to carry out these statutory functions.42 The entire investigative process is typically initiated when the MMD receives the mandatory accident report filed by the ship’s master under Section 350 of the Act.14

B. The Preliminary Inquiry: Establishing the Facts (Section 359, MS Act)

The first stage of the investigation is the Preliminary Inquiry. This is a departmental, fact-finding process, not a public hearing.14 Its core purpose is to swiftly establish the essential facts of the case: to confirm that a shipping casualty within the meaning of the Act has occurred, to reconstruct the events leading to it, to ascertain the extent of loss of life and property, and to identify potential causes, including any acts of incompetency, negligence, or misconduct by the persons involved.14

The MMD officer appointed to conduct the Preliminary Inquiry is vested with significant powers to facilitate this fact-finding mission. These powers include the authority to board and inspect the vessel and its equipment, to summon any person deemed relevant for a statement, and, crucially, to demand the production of all logbooks, charts, and other documents considered necessary for the inquiry.14 The final report of this inquiry is a confidential document submitted to the Central Government (via the DG Shipping), which then determines the subsequent course of action.14

C. The Formal Investigation: Determining Cause and Culpability (Section 360 & 361, MS Act)

If the findings of the Preliminary Inquiry suggest that the incident is of a serious nature and warrants a more in-depth, public examination, the Director General of Shipping may order a Formal Investigation to be held by a court.14

A Formal Investigation is a judicial proceeding conducted by a First Class Magistrate.14 It is critical to understand its primary objective. The goal is not to punish the individuals at fault, but rather “to throw light on the cause of the causality and to consider steps to prevent such causalities in future”.14 To ensure technical accuracy, the court is assisted by independent, technically qualified assessors. In cases where the investigation may lead to the cancellation or suspension of a Master’s, Mate’s, or Engineer’s Certificate of Competency, the law mandates that the court must be assisted by no fewer than two assessors who have the requisite experience in the Merchant Marine Service.14

The court’s final report is submitted to the Central Government. While its main purpose is preventative, the court does have the power to censure masters, mates, or engineers for their role in the casualty, and its findings can form the basis for the suspension or cancellation of their professional certificates by the Central Government.14

The Indian investigative process is structured as a deliberate two-stage filter. The Preliminary Inquiry serves as a rapid, internal assessment by the maritime administration. This allows the DG Shipping to evaluate the severity and complexity of an incident and determine if it warrants the significant public resources, time, and scrutiny of a Formal Investigation. This tiered approach acts as an effective filtering mechanism, preventing the judicial system from being overburdened with minor or straightforward incidents and allowing for administrative resolution where appropriate. It reserves the full power of a judicial inquiry for those casualties that have serious implications for maritime safety, reveal significant negligence, or highlight potential flaws in existing regulations.

This leads to a deeper appreciation of the purpose of Formal Investigations. While they can result in penalties for individuals, their core purpose is fundamentally forward-looking and preventative. The findings of a Formal Investigation often have consequences that ripple far beyond the specific incident and the parties involved. The court’s report can lead directly to systemic changes aimed at enhancing maritime safety across the entire industry. These changes can include the amendment of existing regulations, the issuance of new Merchant Shipping Notices and technical circulars to the industry (such as those concerning the observance of collision regulations) 9, and updates to the standards for training, examination, and certification of seafarers. In this sense, a Formal Investigation is not just an inquiry into a past event; it is a public policy tool for shaping a safer maritime future.

IV. The Tripartite Framework of Liability and Compensation

A maritime casualty of this nature gives rise to a complex web of legal claims for damages. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, establishes a sophisticated and multi-layered framework for determining liability and providing compensation, with distinct regimes for collision damage, personal injury, and oil pollution.

A. Liability for Collision and Vessel Damage (Part X, MS Act)

Part X of the MS Act governs the liability arising from the collision itself. The core principle, laid out in Section 345, is that of proportional liability based on fault.19 When damage or loss is caused by the fault of two or more ships, the liability to make good that damage is apportioned among them in proportion to the degree in which each ship was at fault. In circumstances where, having regard to all the facts, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the Act mandates that the liability shall be apportioned equally.19

The determination of “fault” is not arbitrary. It is a technical and legal assessment based heavily on whether the vessels complied with the established “rules of the road” at sea. These rules are contained in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs), which are given the force of law in India under Section 285 of the MS Act.45 A breach of the COLREGs—such as failure to keep a proper lookout, proceeding at an unsafe speed, or failing to take timely action to avoid collision—is a primary indicator of fault that will be used by an investigating officer or a court to apportion liability.46

B. Liability for Loss of Life and Personal Injury (Part X, MS Act)

The Act adopts a different and more claimant-friendly approach for personal injury and loss of life claims. Section 346 establishes the principle of joint and several liability.4 This means that where loss of life or personal injuries are suffered by any person on board a ship due to the fault of that ship and another ship or ships, the owners of the vessels concerned are each liable for the full extent of the damages. A victim or their family can sue any one of the at-fault shipowners and recover 100% of the compensation from that single owner, regardless of that owner’s specific degree of fault.

To ensure fairness between the shipowners, Section 347 provides a right of contribution. An owner who pays a proportion of the damages that exceeds their vessel’s degree of fault is entitled to recover the excess amount from the owner(s) of the other at-fault ship(s).19 It is important to note that these provisions under the MS Act do not preclude claimants from seeking remedies under other applicable Indian laws, such as filing a civil suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, or initiating a criminal complaint under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if gross negligence leading to death can be demonstrated.47

C. The Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Regime

The framework for oil pollution damage is perhaps the most structured and internationalized aspect of maritime liability, reflecting a global consensus on the need to ensure adequate compensation for environmental disasters. India has domesticated this international regime through specific parts of the MS Act. The system operates in distinct layers.

1. Shipowner’s Strict Liability (Part XB, MS Act)

The first tier of liability rests with the shipowner. Part XB of the MS Act, “Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage,” gives effect to the principles of the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC).1

The cornerstone of this regime is strict liability. Section 352I of the Act imposes liability for pollution damage directly on the owner of the ship from which the oil escaped.20 This means a claimant does not need to prove that the owner was negligent; liability attaches simply by virtue of ownership of the source vessel.48 The owner can only escape this liability under a very narrow set of defenses, such as the damage resulting from an act of war, a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, or being wholly caused by the sabotage of a third party.4

However, the owner is normally entitled to limit their liability to an amount calculated based on the ship’s tonnage, as specified in Section 352J.4 To benefit from this limitation, the owner must establish a limitation fund by depositing the required sum with the High Court.4 This right to limit liability is a crucial part of the bargain; however, it is forfeited if it is proven that the pollution damage resulted from the owner’s personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.20

To ensure that funds are available to meet these claims, the Act mandates compulsory insurance. Under the CLC regime, the owner of a tanker carrying more than 2,000 tonnes of persistent oil as cargo is required to maintain insurance or other financial security to cover their liability and must carry a certificate on board as proof.20

2. The International Compensation Framework (Part XC, IOPC Funds)

Recognizing that the costs of a catastrophic spill could exceed the shipowner’s limit of liability, the international community created a second tier of compensation. Part XC of the MS Act, “International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund,” gives effect to the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (IOPC Fund Convention).1

The IOPC Fund provides supplementary compensation to victims of oil pollution damage in two main scenarios: first, when the damage exceeds the shipowner’s liability limit under the CLC, and second, when the shipowner is exempt from liability under one of the CLC’s limited defenses.4 The Fund is financed not by shipowners, but by levies imposed on entities within member states that receive more than 150,000 tonnes of “contributing oil” (crude oil and heavy fuel oil) by sea in a calendar year.48 This unique mechanism effectively shares the financial burden of major spills between the shipping industry (via the owner’s liability) and the oil cargo industry (via contributions to the Fund).

3. The Claims Process for Pollution Damage

The process for claiming compensation for oil pollution damage is well-defined. Claims are admissible for any actual and quantifiable economic loss resulting from the spill. This typically includes costs for cleanup operations at sea and on shore, damage to property, economic losses suffered by the fisheries and tourism sectors, and the costs of reasonable measures for environmental reinstatement.51

Claimants must submit their claims in writing, supported by comprehensive documentation to substantiate the loss, such as invoices for cleanup services, accounting records showing loss of income, and photographic evidence.51 Claims are generally submitted to the shipowner’s insurer (P&I Club) and/or the IOPC Funds, often through a local claims office established in the wake of a major incident.51

Strict time limits apply. Under the conventions, claimants will lose their right to compensation unless they bring court action against the shipowner/insurer or the IOPC Fund within three years of the date on which the damage occurred. In any event, no action can be brought more than six years from the date of the incident that caused the spill.4

The following table clarifies the layered liability and compensation structure for oil pollution damage.

A close examination of the MS Act reveals two fundamentally different legal philosophies operating side-by-side. For collision damage between vessels, the law adheres to a traditional, fault-based system where liability is apportioned based on blame.19 For oil pollution damage, however, the Act embraces a modern, strict liability system where fault is largely irrelevant to the initial question of liability.20 This divergence reflects the evolution of maritime law. The principles of collision liability grew out of centuries of traditional tort law. The oil pollution regime, in contrast, was a direct international response to catastrophic spills like the

Torrey Canyon in 1967, which demonstrated the inadequacy of fault-based systems for addressing massive, widespread environmental harm.48 The international community decided that the societal and environmental cost of oil pollution was so great that ensuring a reliable source of compensation was more important than litigating fault. This means the legal strategy for a collision claim revolves around proving or disproving fault, whereas the strategy for a pollution claim centers on quantifying damages and navigating the complex but well-defined rules of the limitation and fund conventions.

A crucial, yet often overlooked, feature of the oil pollution regime is the principle of “channelling of liability”.48 Part XB of the Act explicitly channels all claims for pollution damage exclusively to the registered shipowner.20 Section 352I(5) states that no claim for pollution damage shall be made against an owner otherwise than in accordance with this section, and Section 352I(6) expressly prohibits such claims against any servants or agents of the owner.20 This is a deliberate and essential legal architecture. The entire international system of limited liability, compulsory insurance, and supplementary funding is predicated on having a single, identifiable, and insurable entity to hold responsible: the registered owner. If claimants were permitted to sue the master, crew, charterer, manager, or salvor directly for pollution damage, the system would become unworkable. It would create a chaotic web of litigation and make the risk uninsurable. The channelling of liability is the lynchpin that makes the entire CLC/Fund regime function. It represents a critical trade-off: claimants relinquish the right to sue multiple parties in exchange for a more certain and accessible path to compensation from a single, insured source.

V. Mandates of Key State Authorities: A Synthesis

The successful management of a complex maritime casualty hinges on the coordinated efforts of several government bodies. In India, the response is characterized by a clear, tripartite division of labor between the DG Shipping, the Indian Coast Guard, and the Mercantile Marine Department.

A. The Directorate General of Shipping (DG Shipping): The Apex Administrator

The DG Shipping is the supreme authority in the Indian maritime administration, vested with statutory powers under Section 7 of the MS Act.6 It is responsible for the overall implementation of the Act, which includes making and enforcing rules, ensuring India’s compliance with international conventions like SOLAS and MARPOL, investigating major accidents, and overseeing all matters related to seafarer welfare and certification.6

In the context of this specific casualty, the DG Shipping’s key actions would include:

• Receiving the formal accident report from the vessel’s master or owner as required by Section 350.19
• Reviewing the Preliminary Inquiry report submitted by the MMD and, based on its findings, ordering a Formal Investigation under Section 360.14
• Coordinating with other government ministries and liaising with the maritime administration of the other vessel’s flag state.56
• Taking administrative action regarding the certificates of competency of any Indian officers found to be at fault or to be holding fraudulent qualifications discovered during the investigation.55
• Overseeing the liability and compensation process, particularly by liaising with the IOPC Funds and ensuring the provisions of Parts XB and XC of the Act are correctly followed.57

B. The Indian Coast Guard (ICG): The Operational Commander for Pollution

The ICG is the state’s primary operational force at sea, with a mandate for maritime law enforcement, safety, and environmental protection as defined by the Coast Guard Act, 1978.12 In this scenario, its role is immediate, physical, and action-oriented.

The ICG’s key actions would include:

• Initiating and coordinating the large-scale Search and Rescue (SAR) operation for the persons reported missing or in distress.14
• Immediately activating the National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (NOSDCP) and assuming the role of On-Scene Commander for the at-sea pollution response.31
• Deploying its assets, including pollution response vessels, Dornier aircraft for aerial surveillance, helicopters for deploying dispersants, and specialized equipment like booms and skimmers to contain and recover the oil.32
• Coordinating the tiered response, directing the actions of ports, oil handling agencies, and other stakeholders as per the NOSDCP.12
• Utilizing its statutory powers under the MS Act to take necessary on-scene actions against the polluting vessel to mitigate the environmental damage.12

C. The Mercantile Marine Department (MMD): The On-Ground Investigator and Surveyor

The MMD functions as the field office of the DG Shipping, responsible for the day-to-day, on-ground administration of the MS Act in the port districts.15 Its core functions in a casualty are investigative and technical.

The MMD’s key actions would include:

• Being the initial point of contact for the master’s accident report, with the local Principal Officer receiving the notification.19
• Appointing a surveyor to conduct the Preliminary Inquiry into the cause of the collision, which involves boarding the vessels, gathering physical evidence, seizing logbooks and documents, and taking statements from the crew.14
• Conducting Port State Control inspections on the vessels involved to check for compliance with international safety and pollution prevention conventions.42
• Carrying out a technical survey of the damage to both vessels to assess their structural integrity and seaworthiness.16
• Submitting the comprehensive Preliminary Inquiry report to the DG Shipping, which will form the basis for all further administrative or judicial action.14
• In the context of the oil spill, the MMD’s role is not operational cleanup but ensuring the vessel’s statutory compliance, for instance by inspecting its International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) Certificate and its Oil Record Book to check for irregularities.33

The Indian response mechanism exhibits a well-defined tripartite division of labor, which is a significant strength in managing a crisis. The roles can be conceptualized as the DG Shipping being the ‘head’ (providing legislative, administrative, and policy direction), the ICG being the ‘hands’ (executing the immediate operational response at sea), and the MMD being the ‘eyes’ (conducting the on-ground technical survey and fact-finding investigation). This clear demarcation minimizes the potential for jurisdictional ambiguity or inter-agency conflict during the critical initial hours of an incident, as each authority has a clearly defined and distinct lane of responsibility.

However, this clear division of labor does not imply that the agencies operate in silos. On the contrary, the effectiveness of the entire state response hinges on their seamless cooperation and interdependence. They are components of a single, integrated system linked by a chain of dependencies. The MMD’s Preliminary Inquiry report is the essential prerequisite for the DG Shipping’s decision to launch a Formal Investigation. The ICG’s operational data on the oil spill—its volume, spread, and characteristics—constitutes vital evidence for the MMD’s investigation and for the DG Shipping’s oversight of the liability and compensation process. In turn, the DG Shipping’s high-level administrative and diplomatic actions provide the overarching framework within which the ICG and MMD can effectively execute their duties. A failure or delay in any one link of this chain will directly impair the function of the others. Therefore, the ultimate success of the response depends not just on the individual competence of each agency, but on their synergy.

VI. Concluding Analysis and Recommendations

The response of a coastal state to a major maritime casualty involving collision, loss of life, and oil pollution is a complex undertaking that tests the limits of its legal, administrative, and operational capabilities. The Indian framework, centered on the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, provides a comprehensive and robust structure for managing such an event. It establishes clear procedural pathways for investigation, response, and the determination of liability, largely in alignment with established international conventions. The tripartite division of responsibility among the Directorate General of Shipping, the Indian Coast Guard, and the Mercantile Marine Department creates a logical and effective system for command, control, and inquiry.

A. Summary of Procedural Steps and Responsibilities

The sequence of events and responsibilities unfolds along parallel but interconnected tracks. Immediately following the collision, the masters of the involved vessels are bound by the statutory duties under Section 348 of the MS Act to render aid and exchange information. They must also make immediate log entries and submit a formal accident report within 24 hours, which triggers the state’s response. The Indian Coast Guard, in its SAR role, coordinates the immediate effort to save lives. Simultaneously, as the Central Coordinating Authority for pollution, the ICG activates the National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan, assuming operational command of the at-sea cleanup effort through a tiered response system.

Concurrently, the Mercantile Marine Department initiates a Preliminary Inquiry to establish the facts and causes of the collision. Based on the MMD’s confidential report, the DG Shipping may then order a formal, judicial investigation to determine cause and recommend preventative measures. The legal aftermath is governed by distinct liability regimes within the MS Act: a fault-based, proportional liability system for collision damage, and a joint and several liability system for personal injury and loss of life. For the oil pollution, a sophisticated international regime is applied, starting with the shipowner’s strict but limited liability under Part XB (CLC), supplemented by compensation from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund under Part XC.

B. Strategic Recommendations for Stakeholders

Based on this analysis, the following strategic recommendations are offered to key stakeholders who may be involved in such an incident:

• For Shipowners and Masters: The critical importance of immediate, accurate, and detailed logging and reporting cannot be overstated. These initial documents form the bedrock of the entire investigation. Masters and senior officers should receive enhanced training that focuses not just on operational procedures but on the legal implications of their post-collision decisions, particularly the judgment call required by Section 348 when balancing the duty to assist against the safety of their own vessel.
• For Insurers (P&I Clubs) and Legal Counsel: Rapid engagement with the Indian authorities is crucial. It is essential to recognize and interact with the tripartite system, establishing lines of communication with the DG Shipping (for administrative and legal matters), the ICG (for operational response and cost monitoring), and the MMD (for the casualty investigation). Appointing experienced local correspondents who are intimately familiar with this specific administrative structure is vital. A proactive approach to evidence gathering, running in parallel with the official MMD inquiry, should be adopted to protect the interests of the assured.
• For Indian Government Agencies: While the legal and procedural framework is robust, its effectiveness is contingent on on-ground capacity and seamless inter-agency cooperation. A formal review of the resources available for pollution response, particularly the number and readiness of dedicated Pollution Control Vessels as noted in past audits 34, should be undertaken. Efforts must be intensified to ensure all coastal states develop and integrate oil spill contingencies into their state-level disaster management plans, addressing a noted gap.41 Finally, the DG Shipping, ICG, and MMD should conduct more frequent, large-scale, integrated drills that simulate a multi-faceted casualty of this nature. Such exercises would move beyond testing individual agency capabilities to stress-testing the critical points of inter-agency communication, data sharing, and synergistic action, thereby strengthening the resilience of the entire national response system. A periodic review and update of the NOSDCP is also recommended to incorporate lessons learned and address any identified enforcement weaknesses.40

Works cited

1. Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 – India Code, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1562?view_type=browse
2. Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 – India Code, accessed July 23, 2025, https://indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1562
3. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 is a comprehensive legislation dealing with merchant shipping in India. The statute had been ena, accessed July 23, 2025, https://shipmin.gov.in/sites/default/files/MERCHANT_SHIPPING_BILL_2020_EXPLANATION_KEY.pdf
4. The Law of Liability for Maritime Accidents in India – DOCS@RWU, accessed July 23, 2025, https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=law_ma_jmlc
5. MS Act 1958.pptx – SlideShare, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/ms-act-1958pptx/256767632
6. Directorate General of Shipping – Wikipedia, accessed July 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_General_of_Shipping
7. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 – Indian Kanoon, accessed July 23, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/681709/
8. Environmental Regulations at Ports – Press Release:Press Information Bureau, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2004339
9. Prevention of Collision of Ships in Ports and at High Seas – India Code, accessed July 23, 2025, https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_7_7_00002_195844_1517807319092&type=circular&filename=17_of_2010.pdf
10. What is DG Shipping in India? Purpose, Roles & Extraordinary Impact – Rife Consultancy, accessed July 23, 2025, https://rifeconsultancy.com/what-is-dg-shipping-in-india/
11. About us – Directorate General of Shipping, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/content/aboutustop.aspx
12. Marine Environment | Official Website of Indian Coast Guard Head …, accessed July 23, 2025, https://indiancoastguard.gov.in/marine-environment
13. Indian Coast Guard conducts 9th National Level Pollution Response Exercise (NATPOLREX-IX) off Vadinar, Gujarat – PIB, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1979866
14. Investigation and enquiries – Wreck & Salvage – Search & Rescue, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/Content/ShipManualChap14.aspx
15. MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI – Directorate General of Shipping, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/Content/mumbai.aspx
16. Mercantile Marine Department | SHIP ARREST – INDIA JURISDICTION, accessed July 23, 2025, http://shiparrest.co.in/LRC/mmd.htm
17. Casualty Investigation – Directorate General of Shipping, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/Content/CasualtyInvestigation.aspx
18. Safety of Navigation Chapter V of SOLAS 1974 as amended – India Code, accessed July 23, 2025, https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_7_7_00002_195844_1517807319092&type=circular&filename=20_of_2010.pdf
19. PART X Collisions, Accidents At Sea & Liability, accessed July 23, 2025, https://dgshipping.gov.in/Content/PARTXCollisions.aspx
20. PART XB Civil Liability For Oil Pollutin Damage, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/Content/PARTXBCivil.aspx
21. Section 348 in The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 – Indian Kanoon, accessed July 23, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72956/
22. Responsibility, Authority and Duties of The Master As Per Safety and Quality Management System | PDF | Sea Captain – Scribd, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/484790986/Master-responsybility-docx
23. SOLAS CHAPTER V SAFETY OF NAVIGATION – GOV.UK, accessed July 23, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f0081ed915d74e33f3c6e/solas_v_on_safety_of_navigation.pdf
24. Untitled – Indian Coast Guard, accessed July 23, 2025, https://indiancoastguard.gov.in/sites/default/files/202012020723430697078NOS-DCP_0.pdf
25. THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1958 – Mumbai Port Trust, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.mumbaiport.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTF1984/1690780961.pdf
26. The Goa State Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan, accessed July 23, 2025, https://goaspcb.gov.in/Media/Default/other%20publications/TheGoaStateOilSpilDisasterContingencyPlan.pdf
27. 1. OSCP for SPM.pdf – Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, accessed July 23, 2025, https://mrpl.co.in/sites/default/files/1.%20OSCP%20for%20SPM.pdf
28. Revised contingency plan out for oil spill crises in Indian – INCOIS, accessed July 23, 2025, https://incois.gov.in/documents/PressNews/OnlineOilSpillAdvisory-BStandard-09-04-2015.pdf
29. National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan meet – INCOIS, accessed July 23, 2025, https://incois.gov.in/documents/PressNews/National_Oil_Spill_Disaster_Contingency_Plan_meet_11042015.pdf
30. Indian Coast Guard organizes Seminar, Workshop and Mock Drill on Pollution Response – PIB, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1923641
31. PREPARED BY’INDIAN COAST GUARD – West Bengal Disaster Management & Civil Defence Department, accessed July 23, 2025, http://wbdmd.gov.in/writereaddata/uploaded/CMP/12%20Oil%20Spill.pdf
32. Coast guard launches oil spill containment efforts after successful rescue operation | Kochi News – Times of India, accessed July 23, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/coast-guard-launches-oil-spill-containment-efforts-after-successful-rescue-operation/articleshow/121395873.cms
33. MMD rules out large scale oil spill from sunken ship off Kerala coast, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.sagarsandesh.in/news/37938
34. CHAPTER 6, accessed July 23, 2025, https://cag.gov.in/uploads/download_audit_report/2011/Union_Performance_Defence_Services_Role_and_Functioning_Indian_Coast_guard_7_2011_chapter_6.pdf
35. National level pollution response exercise – SP’s MAI, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.spsmai.com/military/?id=4261&q=National-level-pollution-response-exercise
36. PART XIA Prevention And Containment Of Pollution Of The Sea BY OIL – Directorate General of Shipping, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/Content/PARTXIAPrevention.aspx
37. Steps Taken For Prevention and Control of Pollution From Ships – PIB, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1605383
38. INDIA’s RESPONSE TO MARINE OIL SPILLS: AN EVALUATION, accessed July 23, 2025, https://maritimeindia.org/16478-2/
39. merchant shipping (amendment) act, 2008 – IMO International Maritime Law Institute, accessed July 23, 2025, https://imli.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Arvind-Kumar.pdf
40. Marine Disasters: Why India Needs a New Oil Spill Response Framework Now – Deccan Herald, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/oil-spills-call-for-new-response-3609699
41. Proceedings NOS DCP 2023.pmd – Indian Coast Guard, accessed July 23, 2025, https://indiancoastguard.gov.in/sites/default/files/202402120542379735626NOS.pdf
42. Merchant Shipping Notice 3 of 2006 Reconstitution of Indian Marine Administration Establishment Mercantile Marine Department (MMD), Kochi – India Code, accessed July 23, 2025, https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_7_7_00002_195844_1517807319092&type=circular&filename=3_of_2006.pdf
43. Summary of Provisions under Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/Content/ShipManualChap3.aspx
44. Division of loss in case of collision | Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 | Bare Acts | Law Library | AdvocateKhoj, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/merchantshipping1958/345.php?Title=Merchant%20Shipping%20Act,%201958&STitle=Division%20of%20loss%20in%20case%20of%20collision
45. Collision regulations | Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 | Bare Acts | Law Library – AdvocateKhoj, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/merchantshipping1958/285.php?Title=Merchant%20Shipping%20Act,%201958&STitle=Collision%20regulations
46. Collision Actions, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.admiraltypractice.com/chapters/74.htm
47. SEAFARER SUBJECT GUIDE PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATHS IN INDIA This Guide explains national law when seafarers are injured or kill, accessed July 23, 2025, https://seafarersrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/INDIA.SUBJECTGUIDE.PERSONAL-INJURIESANDDEATHS_2014_ENG_WEB.pdf
48. An Act to Incorporate the International Oil Pollution Compensation Supplementary Fund, 2003 into the Merchant Shipping Act 1958, accessed July 23, 2025, https://imli.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ARCHANA-REDDY.pdf
49. Definitions | Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 | Bare Acts | Law Library …, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/merchantshipping1958/352s.php?Title=Merchant%20Shipping%20Act,%201958&STitle=Definitions
50. ASM ORAL Capt S S Chaudhary Notes-2023 | PDF | Sailor | Marine, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/872558384/ASM-ORAL-Capt-S-S-Chaudhary-Notes-2023
51. Compensation – IOPC FUNDS, accessed July 23, 2025, https://iopcfunds.org/compensation/
52. oil spillage – ANSWER, accessed July 23, 2025, https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/219/Au2083.pdf?source=pqars
53. IOPCFunds.pdf – Welcome to the United Nations, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/contributions_2020/IOPCFunds.pdf
54. The Merchant Shipping (International Fund For Compensation For Oil Pollution Damage) Rules, 2008 – Indian Kanoon, accessed July 23, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47430419/
55. D G Shipping cracks down on seafarers holding certificates through fraudulent practices, accessed July 23, 2025, https://infra.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/ports-shipping/d-g-shipping-cracks-down-on-seafarers-holding-certificates-through-fraudulent-practices/122804512
56. Inside DG Shipping’s Crew Branch & Its Vital Role in Maritime Welfare #crew – YouTube, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eBQs5ILfQo
57. Pollution of Sea by Oil – Directorate General of Shipping, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/Content/ShipManualChap16.aspx