Can't Detain Foreign Seafarers Indefinitely Pending Maritime Accident Probe: Kerala High Court Permits Repatriation Of MV Wan Hai 503 Crew
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision allowed two foreign crew members of MV Wan Hai 503, which was involved in a maritime accident last year near to Azheekal, to leave India for their home countries. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 332]Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the writ petition filed by Taiwanese national Wei, Chun-Ju and Chinese national Tao Peng, who respectively the Master and...
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision allowed two foreign crew members of MV Wan Hai 503, which was involved in a maritime accident last year near to Azheekal, to leave India for their home countries. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 332]
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the writ petition filed by Taiwanese national Wei, Chun-Ju and Chinese national Tao Peng, who respectively the Master and Chief Officer of the vessel that suffered a fire onboard on June 9, 2025.
"Having regard to the length of the period that they have been detained in India, i.e., from 09.06.2025 onwards, I am of the view that their continued detention in India is against the principles of Maritime Conventions including the Guidelines on Fair Treatment of Seafarers in the Event of a Maritime Accident, 2006. Of course, those are only guidelines framed by the International Maritime Organization and are not binding. Nevertheless, the said principle cannot be disregarded lightly," the Court remarked.
After the occurrence of the marine casualty, the ship was towed to Jebel Ali Port in UAE. However, the petitioners were detained at Mangalore since they were arrayed in a criminal case registered by the Coastal Police Station and made part of an investigation conducted by the Director General of Shipping (DGS) as well as the Mercantile Martine Department (MMD) under the Merchant Shipping Act.
Since they were detained in India for almost a year, they came before the High Court in the present proceedings.
The Union, the MMD and DGS filed statement saying that they have no objection for repatriating the petitioners provided that they would be available in the future to cooperate with the investigation.
The Station House Officer of the Coastal Police Station, Fort Kochi pointed out that an oil leak was caused due to the fire and several containers with hazardous and chemical substances fell into the sea. Pursuant to the incident, offences under Sections 282, 285, 286, 287, 288 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were registered against them.
It was contended that the petitioners cannot be permitted to leave the country since there is a chance that they would change their addresses and fail to appear before the court, rendering the investigation incomplete.
After hearing the parties, the Court took note of the fact that the offence under Section 285 BNS was deleted and the other offences alleged are all bailable in nature.
It opined that since the SHO has not stated as to when the probe would be completed, the petitioners cannot be detained indefinitely. Thus, the Court felt that they can be permitted to leave India after imposing conditions to ensure their presence as and when required:
"It is evident that petitioners would be required to answer the crime, if ultimately it is chargesheeted against them. For such a purpose, their continued presence in India, that too, indefinitely, is not necessary. Of course, it has to be ensured that they appear before the court as and when required, for which purpose necessary conditions can be imposed."
The Court asked them to execute a bank guarantee for Rs. 25 lakhs for a eriod of one year, to be renewed until the criminal case and the investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act comes to a conclusion.
The petitioners were also directed to appear either in person or online as and when required by any court of law or the Union, the MMD or DGS.
The Magistrate Court was directed to return the passports seized.
It was also made clear that if the petitioners fail to comply with any directions of any court of law or the afore respondents, the MMD can encash the bank guarantee and initiate appropriate proceedings to ensure their presence.
Thus, it disposed of the plea.
Case No: WP(C) No. 17826 of 2026
Case Title: Wei, Chun-Ju and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
Counsel for the petitioners: Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), Jikku Seban George, Deepti Susan George, Anjana Wilson
Counsel for the respondents: Parvathy Kottol - Government Pleader, K.V. Sree Vinayakan - Central Government Counsel