Katchatheevu island: Centre says ‘Union of India’ isn’t party to case

“As the Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) is not concerned with the subject matter, it is not a necessary party, and hence it is necessary to delete the names of Respondent No. 1 from the cause title,” the applications read.
Should the court allow the request, the Ministry of External Affairs would remain the only party representing the government. Incidentally, the applications wherein the Union of India seeks deletion of its name as a party, the affidavits have been sworn by an officer of the MEA. Vishwesh Negi, a deputy secretary in the MEA, has filed his personal affidavits, accompanying the applications.

The applications have cited technical reason why the Union of India is not a necessary party to the case and that the MEA could represent the Indian government in the matter. Such a plea however may raise questions since the applications have been moved five years after Jayalalithaa filed the first PIL into the matter. The AIADMK chief had moved her PIL in 2008 whereas DMK chief Karunanidhi filed the petition in 2013. Further, it is not usual for the Union of India to seek deletion of its name as a party in a case where a particular ministry of the government is said to be directly involved.

Katchatheevu is considered a hot spot of long-standing dispute between the fishing communities of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. The two former chief ministers of Tamil Nadu have urged the Supreme Court to direct the Centre to take necessary steps for retrieval of the island and to restore the traditional fishing rights of fishermen of Tamil Nadu.
Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi seek to declare the 1974 and 1976 maritime boundary agreements between India and Sri Lanka as “unconstitutional and non est” (non-existent).

Replying to this, the Centre has said in its affidavit that the question of retrieval of the island did not arise since no territory belonging to India was ceded to Sri Lanka. It had submitted that the island belonged to neither side during the British rule and it went to Sri Lanka when the international boundary lines were drawn. During a hearing on a related matter in August last, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had told the court that a war was the only option India would have to exercise if it wanted the island now.