'We Can't Shut Our Eyes': Kerala High Court Seeks Centre's Plan To Tackle Environmental Impact Of MSC Elsa 3 Wreckage
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (June 23) directed the Union government to submit a detailed action plan to tackle the issues highlighted by it with respect to the wreckage caused by MSC Elsa 3 ship.
The Liberian-flagged vessel had sunk off the coast of Kerala on May 25, 2025, raising concerns regarding environmental degradation, adverse effects to marine life and navigational safety issues.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar recorded the submission of the Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) that the official respondents including the MOEFCC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) as well as Director General of Shipping (DGS) and all other central agencies are proposing to have a meeting to chalk out a plan and that a positive plan in terms of the directions issued shall be placed within 2 weeks.
The Court 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.
Last time, the Court had sought the response of the Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), 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.
It had further 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 had also expressed its concerns regarding the long-term impact due to the presence of harmful 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.
When the matter came up today, the Court again orally expressed concerns that could crop up as a result of the wreckage:
"You know what the consequences are. It will spread all over. Marine environment will be damaged. The fish will eat it. Your export will be rejected. The Ashtamudi clam will go. Everything will be affected. We won't be able to eat this fish...."
ASGI P. Sreekumar representing the Union and the Ministries submitted that a joint meeting is being convened to come up a solution. He further submitted that the only agency available is the department of Earth and Geography since it has the machinery to go down into the sea and find out what is happening.
"It will take some time to coordinate all these things. We are also of the view that subsequent field survey is to be done," he added.
The Court then orally questioned why nothing was done since the sinkage that happened more than a year ago. It pointed to the number of containers lying on the seabed and orally said that only the report by the agency of shipping company MSC states that the containers are not unsafe:
"Somebody should tell us whether the cargo straps are safe and most of the containers are also loose. That also from the report itself. We have nothing with us...Tell us that the union government is satisfied that the debris is all lying under the mud and the container inside the ship is absolutely safe...So what do you want us to do? We want you do a meeting with the Coast Guard, DG Shipping, MSC, BMC and verify the status of the containers and tell us that everything is done."
To this the ASG responded that the quantity washed ashore was counter-checked and that for ascertaining the afore aspect, an inspection under the sea has to be done. "For that, we have to go deep...It is not something that can be done in 4-5 days," he added.
"That has to be done. Somebody will say that they have expended 50 crores for the surveyors, so you don't have the money. State government has nothing with them. It is only for you to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the coastal area is safeguarded. It is not very easy...Doesn't appear that after 9.5.2025, anything has been done. You issue some notices to them. They reply saying that there is no hazard," Justice Raja said.
The ASGI reiterated that the shipping company's reply has not been accepted yet.
"If this happens in some other country, just see what they will do. If it happens in a small country, they will do all that is needful to protect their people. Something has to be done," Justice Raja further orally remarked.
The ASGI pointed out that such accidents occur rarely and there are chances of more damage if attempt is made to remove the wreck.
Senior Advocate Santhosh Mathew for MSC also agreed that an authority has to state the same.
The Court then oral observed, "2-3 containers are damaged. That is also there in one report. If that containers are secured, it is underneath the seabed, no need to do anything. It is safe. Just say it. We will record it and finish it off. Let the admiralty suit matter go on."
"To give that report, we have to do the field survey," ASG clarified.
When the Court urged the same to be done, the ASG replied that it would take time. "Initial stage is the meeting with all the ministries. Immediately in MoEF and DGS. Then we can get the proposal what is to be done, by whom...Last year, apart from the plastic nurdles, nothing has surfaced or nothing has come ashore," he added.
Sr. Adv. Mathew submitted: "It's not like nothing has been done. Court has been interfering. Orders have been passed. Suit also there. It is not as if nothing is absolute."
The Court then inquired about whether the nurdles surfaced has been disposed of: "Whatever problematic issues, we have recorded in the order itself. What about the nurdles, all disposed of?...Who disposed of?"
Sr. Adv. Prashant Pratap also appearing for MSC submitted: "Nurdles which have washed shore, they have all been collected, all segregated and disposed of...We have appointed an independent agency."
"We don't find from the records that the nurdles collected have been disposed. It is stocked in some godown. Is it correct? Then how can it be disposed of?," the Court pressed.
Sr. Advocate Pratap replied: "It has not gone to Kollam. It has gone to Cochin port. Customs documentation is there. Customs duty is paid. Entire quantity is accounted for...Coast Guard is a party. It is not filing an affidavit. Just issued some letter to the petitioner. It is issued to so many authorities. None of the authorities have even taken cognizance of it. How does the Coast Guard know what is the condition of the container at 50 m depth? They are parties here. They could have filed an affidavit. Then your Lordship could have taken judicial notice."
Justice Raja then said, "Just because these official respondents haven't done anything, since it is before us, we cannot shut our eyes. That is our problem. The official respondents, probably, they are not acting. We don't know why. When the matter is brought to our notice, we'll look into it and pass an order. Just want to know what exactly are you going to do?...It is stocked in a godown. It is for them to dispose it of. Not for the Pollution Control Board to spent money to dispose...Why should it be kept in Kollam? It should be disposed of. They should take steps to dispose it of....Nurdles, some authority should initiate, not PCB. PCB does not have the funds to dispose of 350 mt of nurdles. We are also in the dark when he says that oil will be...."
The senior counsel appearing for MSC explained that urgent steps were taken to remove fuel and lubricating oils, which are more dangerous because they do not dissipate or evaporate. He also answered the Court's concern regarding rubber chemical by saying that the same is inside the ship wreck. He added that the only dangerous element, which is the calcium carbide, is strapped and secure.
Justice Raja turned to MSC's counsel and orally said: "You also tell us because the resources which our poor State has is limited. You have P&I and indemnity. You just tell us in terms of the conventions...some goods in damaged containers are there. You can come and tell us that this is the measures we can take. It is your responsibility to ensure that we do not suffer...This strapped, securely, we also would like to know. Somebody should do at least once a year and check whether the strips are in order. Even though nurdles which are lying outside, your report says that the containers are damaged and it is leaking. So it's a permanent affair...Just tell us the measures that are taken"
The senior counsel referred to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks and explained that a balanced view has to be taken to ensure that remedies do not lead to worse consequences.
To this, Justice Raja orally said, "Your Surveyor has given the risk level...They are saying that let this be there, that is better. Let these people tell us independently that this is correct."
The Court then granted time to ASG to inform it regarding the plan proposed to be undertaken in respect to its earlier order. The case is posted on July 14 for further consideration.
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