The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar issued the direction in a batch of public interest litigations raising questions regarding the navigational hazards, marine pollution and livelihood issues of coastal communities posed following the sinking of MSC Elsa 3 along the coast of Kerala.

The Court also considered an interlocutory application through which the petitioner sought modification of a previous order of the Court dated 19 June, 2025.

By its order dated 19 June, the Court had directed the State to defer the negotiation, citing transparency issues. 

In the present application, the petitioners sought permission for the Committee to resume and continue its functions, including negotiations with MSC concerning the assessment of damages, costs and compensation arising from environmental damage, the restoration and remediation measures required, and the economic losses suffered by the State and the fishing community.

The petitioner further sought permission for the Committee to undertake the assessment and negotiation processes alongside the pending legal proceedings, subject to the condition that no final settlement, compromise, binding agreement or final determination of compensation would be concluded.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the circumstances prevailing when the Court passed its order on June 19, 2025, had substantially changed.

It was pointed out that the State Government had instituted Admiralty Suit No. 12 of 2025 and that, following a preliminary hearing, the Single Judge had directed the shipping company to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹1,227.62 crore. The company had reportedly furnished the bank guarantee in compliance with that direction.

The petitioner also highlighted that, despite the passage of more than a year, environmental restoration works had not commenced. It was contended that allowing the Committee to resume its functions would not prejudice the pending admiralty proceedings and would instead facilitate the continued assessment of environmental damage and the identification of appropriate restoration and remediation measures.

The Additional Advocate General submitted that it would be appropriate to proceed with the assessment after receipt of the multibeam survey report. The State Government, however, had no serious objection to modifying the earlier order to permit the Committee to resume its functions.

“We find that the circumstances which had persuaded this Court to defer the functioning of the Committee constituted pursuant to Ext. P14, as recorded in the order dated 19.06.2025, no longer exists in the same manner.” Court noted.

It noted that the Committee had originally been constituted to facilitate engagement with MSC and establish an institutional arrangement for developing a financial package to enable the State Government to undertake risk and damage assessment, manage remedial measures and address compensation-related issues.

The Court further observed that the Committee was intended to ensure effective oversight and coordination in the rapid and long-term assessment of the damage, as well as the identification and implementation of appropriate remediation measures.

Taking into account the subsequent developments, particularly the decision to conduct the multibeam survey and the State Government's position before the Court, the Bench held that the restraint imposed by the order dated June 19, 2025, insofar as it deferred negotiations by the Special Committee of Government Officers, could be recalled.

Accordingly, the Committee was permitted to resume and continue its functions in accordance with the objectives for which it was constituted and the applicable Government orders.

Previously, the Court had taken note of the steps initiated by the Directorate General of Maritime Administration (DGMA) to assess the condition of submerged containers and the possible navigation and environmental risks associated with them following the sinkage.

When the matter was taken up the Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that meetings had been held on October 17 and 20, 2026, at the instance of the third respondent, the Director General of Shipping, during which a decision was taken to entrust the conduct of the multibeam survey to C-Track Surveys. The survey is to be undertaken at the cost and responsibility of the vessel's owner.

The Court recalled that the scope of work for the survey was to be jointly formulated and furnished to C-Track Surveys to ensure that the data collected would be available to both respondents for further analysis and necessary action.

The third respondent will act as the monitoring authority and will consider and consolidate the inputs received from the concerned stakeholders before forwarding the finalised scope of work to C-Track Surveys.

The Court directed the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to submit its inputs on the scope of work, noting its responsibilities in environmental protection and the assessment of environmental damage. The Special Secretary, Environmental Department, is also to furnish the State Government's inputs.

The Court emphasised that the petitioners and all other stakeholders, including the State Government and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, must submit their respective inputs within one week.

The matter is posted on 24 November for further consideration.

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