The Orissa High Court has told the Union to disembark and repatriate the master and 22 crew of the abandoned vessel MT Unity, anchored at Paradip since May 2026, holding that seafarers too have a right to live with dignity under Article 21.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Cuttack: Holding that the tanker MT Unity stood abandoned within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, the Orissa High Court has directed the Union of India and its concerned authorities to immediately take charge of the situation of the vessel, anchored at Paradip Port since May 2026, and to ensure the disembarkation and repatriation of its master and crew with replacement of crew. The cost is to be recovered from the owner or its agents as a maritime claim [Mr. Istyagin Evegeny Nikolaevich, Master of the Vessel MT Unity v. Union of India and Others].
Justice R.K. Pattanaik delivered the judgment on October 6, 2026 after hearing the matter on September 21, 2026, disposing of the writ petition and asking that the directions be complied with preferably within three weeks of receipt of the judgment.
The operative directions
… this Court, in the interest of justice and having regard to the statutory obligations contemplated under the Act and also the Convention, to which, India is a signatory, is inclined to direct opposite party Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 to immediately take charge of the situation to ensure their disembarkment and repatriation necessarily with replacement of the crew and such other exercise as expedient without further delay and to realize the expenses incurred while accomplishing it from the Owner or its agents whosoever liable to indemnify as maritime claim and accordingly, it is ordered.
Stranded since May
The petition was filed by the Master of the vessel, a Russian national, for himself and 22 crew members. The vessel, flying the flag of Cameroon or Sierra Leone, reached Paradip on May 11, 2026 and was arrested by the High Court in its admiralty jurisdiction as security for a maritime claim in ADMLS No. 1 of 2026. It was arrested again on May 22, 2026 in ADMLS No. 2 of 2026 and on July 15, 2026 in ADMLS No. 3 of 2026, and has since remained at anchorage.
The petitioner pleaded that the owner and the charterer or manager had abandoned the vessel, leaving the crew without provisions, drinking water, wages since May 2026 and a crew change plan, with the contracts of 16 crew members, including his, already expired. He pleaded that the vessel appeared in the ILO-IMO Joint Database of Abandoned Seafarers, and that the vessel’s P&I insurer stepped in to arrange supplies and pay outstanding wages, and had agreed to bear repatriation costs but could not arrange replacement crew. These are the petitioner’s pleadings.
The Master, the Union and the Port
Senior Advocate V.J. Mathew for the petitioner relied on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 and Article 21, including the Supreme Court’s decisions in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India and NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Deputy Solicitor General, P.K. Parhi, said the Union is conscious of the crew’s difficulties and has been engaging stakeholders, that an isolated incident does not create a statutory obligation to take over management of a vessel, and that replacement of crew is for the shipowner, manager, custodian or plaintiffs in the admiralty suits, calling the petition a tactic to shift liability.
Counsel for the Paradip Port Authority, A.P. Das, argued that the Master has the right to manage the vessel, that the insurer and the owner’s Indian representative were not made parties, and that the vessel’s prolonged stay poses a security concern for the port’s single point mooring and oil jetties. The Port, he said, had no objection to sign-off and repatriation so long as the vessel retained sufficient crew under its Safe Manning Certificate.
Why the vessel counts as abandoned
The abandonment of seafarers is undoubtedly a labour rights violation. It is not merely a technical breach of contract, but it represents a humanitarian crisis as rightly pointed out by Mr. Mathew, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.
The Court held that the owner and the charterer had miserably failed to discharge their duties under the Convention and the Act, resulting in total abandonment of the vessel and its crew. Under Section 3(2)(d) and (e) of the Act, it found the vessel had become an abandoned vessel, because the owner had failed in its obligations and the vessel was restrained by orders of the Court in admiralty suits.
The Court held that, under Section 92 of the Act, the Central Government has a statutory obligation to arrange and meet the cost of replacement crew when a vessel is abandoned, a cost that is a debt due from the owner and enforceable against the vessel as a maritime claim. It also referred to the Centre’s powers over abandoned vessels under Section 311.
The crew members and the petitioner cannot be left abandoned indefinitely till the maritime claims are settled.
To claim that the parties to the contract are responsible for the replacement and repatriation and therefore, the Union of India is not to intervene is wholly misconceived.
What the judgment settles
The ruling treats abandoned seafarers as holders of the Article 21 right to live with dignity even though they are foreign nationals, and places the Union of India under a statutory duty to step in when an owner walks away from a vessel. It also holds that the pendency of admiralty claims cannot keep a crew in limbo.
Case Title: Mr. Istyagin Evegeny Nikolaevich, Master of the vessel MT Unity v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 25001 of 2026]
Bench: Justice R.K. Pattanaik, Orissa High Court
Date of Hearing: September 21, 2026; Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Mr. V.J. Mathew, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner; Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI, for the Union of India; Mr. A.P. Das, Advocate, for Opposite Party No. 3