Public law compensation for seafarer deaths requires actionable State fault; enhanced compensation and an Article 142 formula were refused.

Public law compensation for alleged Article 21 breach required actionable State fault proximate to the harm, marked by mala fides, conscious abuse, or direct negligence; on the record, the Union was not shown to have caused the seafarers' disappearance by any such omission, so compensation against the State was declined. Enhanced compensation was also refused because the material was insufficient to reassess the quantum on age, income, or other relevant factors, and the Court declined to create a compensation formula under Article 142, leaving broader policy and legislative measures to the competent authorities. The deposited compensation was directed for expeditious disbursement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Union of India was liable in public law for violation of the right to life and for compensation on the ground that no marine casualty investigation was conducted after the disappearance of the vessel carrying Indian seafarers; (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to enhanced compensation or to a judicially declared compensation regime under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Union of India was liable in public law for violation of the right to life and for compensation on the ground that no marine casualty investigation was conducted after the disappearance of the vessel carrying Indian seafarers.

Analysis: The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India operates against the State, not private individuals. The relevant question was whether the Union, and not the private respondents, committed any actionable omission. The material showed that the Indian maritime authority was informed of the casualty and that a request was made to the flag State to carry out the investigation. The case did not disclose mala fides, conscious abuse, intentional wrongdoing, or negligence by the Union that was the proximate cause of the deaths or disappearance. The governing principles of public law compensation did not permit fastening liability merely because statutory functions may have been performed imperfectly.

Conclusion: The Union of India was not liable for compensation on this ground, and the claim failed against the State.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to enhanced compensation or to a judicially declared compensation regime under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The compensation already deposited corresponded to the insurance cover available under the foreign vessel regime. The record did not furnish sufficient material regarding age, income, or other relevant factors to justify a higher judicial assessment of compensation. The Court also declined to frame a compensation formula under Article 142 because the matter involved several policy and legislative factors better left to the competent authority. Instead, the Court indicated that the Government should expedite legislative and administrative measures to secure seafarers' safety and adequate compensation in future cases.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to enhanced compensation in these proceedings, and no compensation formula was declared under Article 142.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was finally disposed of with directions to expedite disbursement of the deposited compensation and with recommendations for strengthening the legal framework governing marine casualty investigations and compensation for seafarers.

Ratio Decidendi: Public law compensation for breach of Article 21 requires actionable State fault that is proximate to the harm and marked by mala fides, conscious abuse, or direct negligence; absent such elements, and absent sufficient material for reassessing compensation, courts will not impose enhanced liability or legislate a compensation regime under Article 142.

---