Kerala High Court Asks Centre, DGS About Timeline For Independent Study On Long-Term Environmental Impact Of MSC Elsa 3 Wreck

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (June 16) sought the response of the Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Director General of Shipping (DGS) as to the timeframe and manner of conducting an independent, long-term impact study on the wreckage caused due to the capsizing of Liberian-flagged MSC Elsa 3.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a batch of public interest litigations raising questions regarding the navigational hazards, marine pollution and livelihood issues of coastal communities posed with the sinkage of vessel.

When the matter came up today, the Court perused the counters filed containing a report prepared by a private agency, and noted that 475 containers, out of the 643 containers that were on board at the time of capsizing, are still under the wreck whereas 72 containers had washed ashore in the coastlines of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and 96 containers are lying on the seabed.

It was also noted that the containers included those containing hazardous calcium carbide, plastic nurdles, rubber chemical anti-oxidant, bamboo sticks, spinning machinery, mixed cargo, etc. as well as bunker oil, marine diesel and lubricating oil.

During the hearing today, the Court orally expressed its apprehension regarding the long-term impact:

"In so far as this calcium carbide and quick lime are concerned, 12 containers, i.e., about 339.2 metric tonnes, that is very critical and one container is lying on the seabed, it can easily be washed to the shore is what we thought. We are not sure about the entire thing but after seeing the pictures prepared...we find that all these containers have been thrown...the power of the sea is massive and anything can happen. Monsoon is also there...From the counter, we have found that everyone is proceeding on the basis that it is just an oil spill or oil leak but we are concerned about the wreck, the long-term issue. We found from the report itself that containers are damaged and nurdles are still leaking. Ultimately, nurdles, fish, export, a lot of things can get affected at some point of time. So need to think about that aspect as well."

Justice Vijayaraghavan further orally remarked about the possibility of leakage of calcium carbide and nurdles, leading to more damage:

"Since it is a wreck, we thought as per the Nairobi and other conventions, the wrecks should be taken out. We can't just put calcium carbide containers lying on the...if it is inside also, somebody should tell us if it had been strapped properly or seal. I don't know what will happen if it comes out and wash to the shore and lot of issues can happen...We just want to do a protocol sort of thing....We are concerned with calcium carbide and lime, number of containers are there...The way in which the nurdles can cause harm, there are umpteen number of ways. This can even affect the Ashtamudi Lake, the clams there. The exports can be affected. Lot of things are there...At some point of time, the nurdles will be ingested by all the fish."

The Court orally remarked that the Centre's counter has relied on the counter filed by MSC to state that matters are under control based on the report of the marine consultant employed by latter opined that there are no serious threats.

Since the DSG's counter mentioned that the oil recovery operation was completed successfully on September 24, 2025, the Court sought clarifications as to the manner in which and the criteria adopted by the DSG in concluding that the oil recovery operation from the sunken vessel was successfully done.

It also wanted clarity on whether all oil recovery and associated environmental mitigation measures were carried out in a safe, professional and environmentally compliant manner.

Noting that the reports submitted by private marine consultant employed by MSC (Mediterranean Shipping Company) had opined that the wreckage do not pose any environmental and navigational hazards, the Court asked the DGS (3rd respondent) to opine whether these reports can be accepted after taking expert consultation.

Since the counter mentions that the afore reports cannot be accepted since it is prepared by the consultants employed by MSC, the Court wanted to know if services of independent consultant was taken to verify the report.

"The 3rd respondent is directed to state whether any measures have been taken to secure the services of an independent consultant to verify the report submitted by the private consultants employed by the 12th respondent [MSC] and also to state as to whether the wreck and containers lying on the seabed would constitute a navigational hazard or an environmental risk or threat for the years to come," the Court observed in its order.

The Court noted that though the counter states that a comprehensive and independent impact assessment, including long-term ecological consequences, arising from the wreck, submerged container and residual cargo is required to be undertaken by government agencies under the guidance and supervision of the MOEFCC, the respective state pollution control boards and other scientific institutions, to ensure a scientific and unbiased analysis on wreck's impact on Kerala's coastline, no material has been placed despite the passage of more than a year as to whether such an exercise has been carried out.

It thus added to its direction:

"The 3rd respondent shall state before us the manner in which they propose to carry out such an environmental impact assessment study, the institutions which are competent to carry out such an exercise and the timeframe with which such an exercise can be carried out."

Further, since in its counter, the DSG had mentioned that it was not the nodal agency for undertaking or certifying feasibility studies relating to environmental assessment or ecological impact determination as it falls within the domain of MOEFCC, the Court directed the Additional Solicitor General to get inputs from the Union and to place on record their counter as well as to how the issue can be addressed.

It then went to suo motu implead the MOEFCC. The case is now posted to next Tuesday (June 23) to hear the ASGI on these aspects.

Case Title: T. N. Prathapan v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases

Case No: WP(PIL) 50/ 2025 and connected cases

Counsel for the petitioners: V. Harish, C.R. Rekhesh Sharma, Rajan Vishnuraj, Anil Thomas(T), K.V. Rashmi, Lakshmi, Rahul Anil, K. Jayesh Mohankumar, Pushparajan Kodoth, Vandana Menon, Vimal Vijay, Dona Mathew

Counsel for the respondents: Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), Amitava Majumdar, Pranoy K. Kottaram, P. Sreekumar - ASGI, T. Naveen - KSPCB

Amicus curiae: Arjun Sreedhar