Contiguous zone jurisdiction and Article 97 of UNCLOS: domestic criminal law may apply, but state police powers are limited.

State police jurisdiction does not extend into the contiguous zone merely because domestic penal laws are extended there by notification; territorial authority remains confined to territorial waters. The article also explains that Article 97 of the Law of the Sea Convention applies to collision-type incidents of navigation on the high seas, not to a criminal shooting incident in the contiguous zone. On that basis, domestic criminal law may still operate in the maritime zone, subject to the Convention's framework and any defence arising from trial evidence, while jurisdictional questions may depend on the facts proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Kerala State Police had jurisdiction to investigate and proceed in respect of an incident occurring about 20.5 nautical miles off the coast, within the contiguous zone. (ii) Whether Indian courts had jurisdiction to try the accused, or whether Article 97 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the flag State or the State of nationality.

Issue (i): Whether the Kerala State Police had jurisdiction to investigate and proceed in respect of an incident occurring about 20.5 nautical miles off the coast, within the contiguous zone.

Analysis: The Maritime Zones Act, 1976 distinguishes territorial waters from the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone. The sovereignty of India extends to territorial waters, while the contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone are governed by a regime of sovereign rights for specified purposes. Extension of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure by notification could support application of domestic law in the maritime zone, but it did not confer independent territorial authority on a State police force beyond the State's territorial waters. The incident occurred outside territorial waters, and the local police could not assert jurisdiction merely because the fishing vessel had sailed from and returned to Neendakara.

Conclusion: The Kerala State Police had no jurisdiction to investigate the incident.

Issue (ii): Whether Indian courts had jurisdiction to try the accused, or whether Article 97 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the flag State or the State of nationality.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the interaction between domestic maritime law and the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 97 governs penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or other incidents of navigation on the high seas, but the firing on an Indian fishing vessel was treated as a criminal act and not as an incident of navigation within that provision. The Convention did not exclude the operation of domestic law in the contiguous zone, and the Court held that India could proceed under its own law, subject to the Convention's cooperation framework and any defence that might arise from evidence at trial under Article 100.

Conclusion: Indian courts had jurisdiction to proceed, and Article 97 did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on Italy.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was held not to be triable by the Kerala State Police, but it was held triable within India through the Union's criminal justice system, with the matter to be tried by a special court and the jurisdictional question left open to be revisited on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: State police jurisdiction does not extend into the contiguous zone merely because domestic penal laws are extended there by notification, and Article 97 of the Law of the Sea Convention applies to collision-type incidents of navigation on the high seas, not to a criminal shooting incident in the contiguous zone.

---