Constitution of India
Article 297: Things of value within territorial waters or continental shelf and resources of the exclusive economic zone to vest in the Union
Part XII — Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits (Chapter III — Property, Contracts, Rights, Liabilities, Obligations and Suits)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: All lands, minerals, and other things of value underlying the ocean within India's territorial waters, continental shelf, or exclusive economic zone shall vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the Union. WHAT IT MEANS: No State, private entity, or foreign company can claim ownership of seabed resources — they belong exclusively to the Union Government. KEY DOCTRINE: Public Trust Doctrine — the Union holds these resources as trustee for the people of India.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: All other resources of India's exclusive economic zone shall also vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the Union. WHAT IT MEANS: Even resources beyond minerals (e.g., fisheries, living marine organisms, wind/tidal energy) within the EEZ are Union property — not State property. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Sovereign Ownership — extends Union dominion to all resource categories within the EEZ.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: The limits of territorial waters, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone, and other maritime zones of India shall be specified from time to time by or under any law made by Parliament. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament alone has the power to define India's maritime boundaries — the Executive or States cannot do so unilaterally. KEY DOCTRINE: Parliamentary Sovereignty over Maritime Zones — Parliament enacted the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, EEZ and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 under this clause.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United States — US Supreme Court ruling in United States v. State of California (1947) Original provision: The US Supreme Court held that the Federal Government, not individual States, had paramount rights over the seabed and resources beneath territorial waters. What India kept: India adopted the principle that the Union (not constituent States) owns all maritime resources. 2. International Law — UNCLOS principles on Continental Shelf (Geneva Convention 1958) Original provision: Coastal states exercise sovereign rights over the continental shelf for exploration and exploitation of natural resources. What India kept: Extended Union ownership to the continental shelf and later to the EEZ via amendments. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Constitutional Entrenchment — Unlike the US where this was decided judicially, India embedded Union ownership of maritime resources directly into the Constitution to avoid federal disputes. 2. EEZ Inclusion (40th Amendment, 1976) — India expanded coverage to include the exclusive economic zone, adapting to evolving international maritime law (UNCLOS III). 3. Parliamentary Boundary-Setting Power — Clause (3) is uniquely Indian, empowering Parliament to define maritime zone limits by law, ensuring flexibility as international law evolves.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 15 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) Draft Article Number: 271A (not in original Draft Constitution 1948; introduced as a new article) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Moved the new Draft Article 271A to clarify that all minerals and resources in the ocean within territorial waters belong exclusively to the Union, not the States. Referenced the US Supreme Court decision in United States v. State of California. 2. A Member (name not recorded in available sources) — Raised concern that the phrase 'other things of value' was vague and wanted a clear definition. Also noted the Constitution did not define 'territorial waters.' 3. Dr. Rajendra Prasad (Assembly President) — Responded that the meaning of 'territorial waters' would be supplied by principles of international law. 4. Another Member — Questioned whether fisheries would also come under Union control via this article. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Definition of 'territorial waters' — A member argued the Constitution should define this term; Ambedkar and the President said international law would supply the definition. 2. Scope of 'other things of value' — Concern about vagueness; no amendment was accepted. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 271A was adopted without amendments and added to the Constitution. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "In the United States... there has been a question as to whether the territorial waters belong to the United States Government or whether they belong to the several States."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1 — The Supreme Court held that natural gas in the seabed vests in the Union under Article 297 and the Government's power to regulate natural resources overrides private agreements; applied the Public Trust Doctrine. 2. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2020) 3 SCC 354 — The SC considered whether States can levy sales tax in territorial waters; held that territorial waters vest in the Union under Art. 297 and set aside Karnataka HC's contrary finding, but left the broader question open. 3. Pride Foramer v. Union of India (Bombay HC) — The Bombay High Court held that Article 297 must be harmoniously construed with Article 1(3) and that Bombay High (offshore platform) in the EEZ is within India for purposes of Art. 297, though not 'territory of India' under Art. 1. 4. AMSSVM & Co. v. State of Madras AIR 1954 Mad 291 — The Madras High Court (Justice Venkatarama Ayyar) held that Article 297 vests only the seabed and subsoil (not the territorial waters themselves) in the Union, distinguishing proprietary rights from legislative jurisdiction. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. No recorded major dissents on Article 297 specifically; however, in Reliance Industries v. RNRL, Justice Sudershan Reddy wrote a separate concurring opinion emphasizing the fiduciary duty of the Government as trustee of natural resources. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. H.M. Seervai (Constitutional Law of India) — Analyzed the distinction between Union ownership of the seabed under Art. 297 and legislative jurisdiction over territorial waters; argued Art. 297 does not make territorial waters part of State territory. 2. Arvind P. Datar (Senior Advocate) — Argued that Art. 297 vests only the seabed and subsoil with the Union, not the water column itself; territorial waters are Union domain, and States cannot claim them as part of their territory. AMENDMENT HISTORY: 1. Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963 — Added the words 'or the continental shelf' after 'territorial waters.' 2. Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976 (w.e.f. 27-05-1976) — Substituted the entire Article 297 with the present three-clause version, adding EEZ, other maritime zones, and Parliament's power to specify limits.