2012 (10) TMI 555 - SC - Indian Laws

Breach of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution - writ of mandamus to the respondents to conduct an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of their husbands/sons who were on board Jupiter - UOI was guilty of violation of the right to life and was liable for compensation to the petitioners - Held that - Right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is only available against the State and that Article 21 was not intended to afford protection to life and personal liberty against violation by private individuals - Jupiter-6 was carrying the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, although it had on its board some Indian seafarers. The Director General of Shipping has issued M.S. Notice 26 of 2002, which lays down the procedure with regard to marine casualty investigation involving Indian citizens on board foreign flag vessels. It is provided in para 2 of Notice that the onus of conducting the investigation into the marine casualty lies with the flag State or the coastal State within whose territorial sea the casualty has occurred. Para 4 of M.S. Notice 26 of 2002, however, states that for the purpose of effective casualty investigation, it is imperative that the Maritime Administration of the State, whose nationals are involved in the marine casualty, by virtue of being ship s crew, is required to be invited to take part in the marine casualty investigation, as a substantially interested State, by the State conducting the investigation. Thus, respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 became aware of the casualty for the first time when they received the communication dated 10.10.2005 about the incident from respondent no.4 and the Surveyor Incharge-cum-Deputy Director General of Shipping by letter dated 19.10.2005 requested Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to carry out the investigation into the casualty as Indian nationals were part of the crew of Jupiter-6. On these facts, it is difficult to hold that the Union of India was guilty of violation of the right to life and was liable for compensation to the petitioners. In the present case, Jupiter-6 was a ship bearing the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and was also covered by insurance and the insurers have deposited Forty Thousand Dollars (40,000 Dollars) for each deceased officer seafarer and Twenty Five Thousand Dollars (25,000 Dollars) for each deceased non-officer seafarer. 40,000 Dollars is equivalent to Rs.18,14,800/- and 25,000 Dollars is equivalent to Rs.11,34,250/- as mentioned in the report of Registrar (J). It is difficult to hold that the aforesaid amount of compensation is not adequate in the absence of sufficient materials produced to show the age, income of the seafarers and all other factors which are relevant for determination of compensation in the case of death of seafarers (officers and non-officers). Thus respondent nos.3 and 4 can also not to be directed to pay the compensation as per the Collective Bargaining Agreements in the absence of any materials placed before the Court to show that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreements. Taking note of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 proposing for setting up an Indian Maritime Casualty Investigation Cell and for amending the 2005 Rules have been indicated. It will be enough to recommend to the respondent no.1 to expedite the proposals which have been under consideration of the Government and to take immediate steps to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and the Rules 2005 in a manner they deem proper to ensure that the life of seafarers employed in different ships in high seas are made more secure and safe and in case of loss of life, their kith and kin are paid adequate amount of compensation - direction to the Registrar (J) to expedite the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the victims in accordance with the orders passed in this case as early as possible, in any case, within a period of four months from today. The compensation received by the legal heirs of the Indian seafarers on board Jupiter-6 will be without prejudice to their claim for higher compensation in any appropriate proceedings.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Breach of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Investigation into the mysterious disappearance of the tugboat Jupiter-6.
3. Compensation for the families of the deceased seafarers.
4. Compliance with the Merchant Shipping Notice No. 26 of 2002 and the Merchant Shipping (Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers) Rules, 2005.
5. Adequacy of insurance coverage and compensation amounts.
6. Liability of the Union of India and other respondents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Breach of Fundamental Right to Life under Article 21:
The petitioners, who lost their husbands/sons in a marine casualty, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging a breach of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The Court considered whether the Union of India violated this right by not conducting a marine casualty investigation when Jupiter-6 went missing.

2. Investigation into the Disappearance of Jupiter-6:
The tugboat Jupiter-6, carrying the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, went missing on 05.09.2005. The Director General of Shipping was informed of the distress signal on 10.10.2005. The Court issued notices to ascertain whether the Maritime Administration of India was invited to participate in the marine casualty investigation, as per M.S. Notice 26 of 2002. The counter affidavit revealed that the Indian Maritime Administration was not invited to participate in the investigation.

3. Compensation for the Families of the Deceased Seafarers:
The Court directed respondents 4 and 5 to release interim compensation to the families of the missing crew. Compensation amounts of 40,000 US Dollars for officers and 25,000 US Dollars for non-officers were deposited in Court. The Court clarified that the compensation paid would be without prejudice to the claim for higher compensation by the families.

4. Compliance with Merchant Shipping Notice No. 26 of 2002 and Rules 2005:
The Court examined the compliance with M.S. Notice 26 of 2002 and the Merchant Shipping (Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers) Rules, 2005. The Notice and Rules require timely reporting of marine casualties and adequate insurance coverage for seafarers. The Court found that the necessary details regarding compliance were not furnished adequately by the respondents.

5. Adequacy of Insurance Coverage and Compensation Amounts:
The petitioners argued that the compensation amounts deposited were inadequate and should be higher, as indicated in the Model Collective Bargaining Agreements. The Court found it difficult to hold that the deposited amounts were inadequate without sufficient materials showing the age, income, and other relevant factors of the seafarers.

6. Liability of the Union of India and Other Respondents:
The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 is only available against the State, and not private individuals. The Union of India was not found liable for compensation as there was no inaction with malicious intent or conscious abuse on their part. The Court noted that the Union of India had requested the flag State to carry out the investigation within nine days of receiving information about the casualty.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with observations and a direction to expedite the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the victims. The Court recommended that the Union of India expedite proposals for amending the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and the Rules 2005 to ensure the safety and security of seafarers and adequate compensation in case of loss of life. The compensation received by the legal heirs would be without prejudice to their claim for higher compensation in appropriate proceedings.