The case of SCFR 90/2024 concerns the persistent and illegal incursion of Indian mechanized fishing trawlers into Sri Lankan territorial waters for the purpose of bottom trawling. The case is filed on 01st April, 2024. This is a significant public interest litigation case in the domains of environmental law, maritime sovereignty, and the fundamental rights of fishing communities. The petitioners, including the Centre for Environmental Justice and three others, state that Indian fishermen routinely cross the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) established by the 1974 and 1976 agreements between India and Sri Lanka. They engage in bottom trawling, a fishing method banned in Sri Lanka since 2017 due to its highly destructive nature. This activity causes severe environmental damage to critical marine habitats like coral reefs and seagrass beds, leads to the depletion of fish stocks, and results in significant economic losses and physical threats to Sri Lankan fishermen in the Northern Province.

The key issues of the case connect to the continuous violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights due to the state’s failure to prevent illegal fishing, the severe ecological and economic damage caused by bottom trawling, the threat to Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity and national security, and the application of core environmental law principles.

On the matter of fundamental rights, the petitioners allege that the state’s inaction infringes upon their right to equality under the Constitution, as they are denied equal protection of the law against foreign encroachment. Furthermore, the right to engage in a lawful occupation under Article 14(1)(g) is violated as livelihoods are destroyed by the unchecked illegal fishing, which depletes fish stocks and damages fishing gear.

Ecologically, the petitioners argue that bottom trawling causes irreversible harm to vulnerable marine ecosystems, including the destruction of coral reefs in the Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar, and the decimation of seagrass beds that are critical for species like the endangered dugong. Economically, this results in an estimated annual loss of billions of Sri Lankan rupees in seafood sales and export income, severely impacting around 50,000 fishing families.

Regarding sovereignty and security, the petitioners argue that the persistent incursions into Sri Lanka’s Historic Waters, Territorial Sea, and Exclusive Economic Zone constitute a direct challenge to the nation’s territorial integrity as enshrined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution.

The case also seeks to enforce several foundational environmental law principles. The Polluter Pays Principle is invoked to argue that those apprehended for illegal trawling must bear the costs of the environmental damage they cause. The principle of Inter-Generational Equity is cited, emphasizing that the state’s failure to protect marine resources jeopardizes the rights of future generations. The Precautionary Principle is relevant to the state’s duty to take preventive action in the face of uncertain but potentially severe environmental harm. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Public Trust positions the state as a guardian of natural resources for the benefit of the public, both present and future, a duty which the petitioners allege the respondents have neglected. The case rests on the principle of Marine and State Sovereignty, asserting Sri Lanka’s exclusive rights, as defined by international law (UNCLOS), to manage and exploit the natural resources within its EEZ. In prayer for relief, the petitioners seek declarations that  fundamental rights have been infringed and also request orders to compel the state authorities to establish dedicated military units for enhanced maritime surveillance, to strictly enforce existing fisheries and environmental laws, to apply the Polluter Pays Principle for compensation, and to initiate urgent and effective diplomatic interventions with India to find a lasting resolution to the crisis.

The petitioners have filed this application against the Director General of the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and 12 other state respondents, including officials from the Ministries of Defence, Fisheries, and Foreign Affairs, as well as the Commanders of the Navy and Coast Guard.

On 25th November 2025, the case was dismissed.