India’s Evolving Maritime Labour Regime: Are We Doing Enough To Prevent Seafarer Abandonment?

Introduction

In July 2024, sixteen seafarers from India and Syria were abandoned in Hodeidah, Yemen. During the same period, eight Indian seafarers remained trapped on board the Comoros-flagged Captain Tarek while Israeli airstrikes hit the port. They were left without assistance from the shipowner, unpaid, and exposed to repeated attacks. These are part of the reported cases; such more incidents faced by Indian crew never reach the authorities. This is not unusual; it reflects a long-standing concern. According to the International Transport Workers’ Federation, 899 Indian seafarers were abandoned in 2024, making up 28.69% of global cases. Although India is the largest supplier of seafarers to the worldwide merchant fleet, its nationals remain vulnerable to abandonment, often due to shipowners’ default, flight, or their hiding behind the flag of convenience. This brings forward the dual-jurisdiction gap. Clear legal obligations rest with the flag state, but when they default, the suffering falls on seafarers, and the duty of humanitarian support ultimately shifts to India. This blog examines how India’s regulations address seafarer abandonment and the need for targeted welfare reforms to safeguard Indian seafarers from abandonment.

Understanding abandonment under International Maritime Law

The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (amended in 2025), offers the clearest international legal standard for determining when a seafarer is considered abandoned. Under these provisions, abandonment occurs when wages remain unpaid for two months or more, when shipowners fail to provide essential supplies such as food, water, or medical care, or when crews are left without financial support and operational communication, or when arrangements for repatriation are withheld. Despite these harsh conditions, abandoned members cannot leave the vessel due to several constraints, including immigration and visa restrictions, the criminal repercussions of deserting the ship, and a lack of money and required documents to leave. The abandonment and the constraint to live on the ship leave them with isolation, lack of food and wages for months, inability to provide for the family, and lack of legal awareness of their own rights. These are all reasons that seafarers continue to suffer inhumane conditions. For Indian seafarers who top the list of being abandoned, these vulnerabilities translate into distress. According to ITF’s seafarers’ bulletin 2025, 82 % of the 312 abandoned vessels were flying under the flag of convenience (ship registered in a foreign state for easier and cheaper regulatory compliance) This report also highlights that approximately 32% of the issues during inspection arises from problem in agreement which is the first step of any seafarers professional journey, not only this 26.6% problems had arisen due to breach of contract which implies that roots of abandonment are planted at the recruitment stage itself. When agreements are poorly drafted or inadequately verified or have been drafted through unverified agents, everything subsequently is placed on this compromised foundation. Precisely, abandonment is rarely a sudden event; it is majorly cumulative result of systemic failures from the very start. 

Why are Indians most exposed

Indian seafarer risks stem not from numbers but from the proper enforcement gap. A major portion of the Indian crew serves on flags of convenience vessels, which are known for their minimal regulatory enforcement and weak labour oversight. Such vessels create a place for exploitation. Even when early signs of abandonment appear, many seafarers hesitate to report because they owe debts to unregistered agents, their families depend solely on their wages, and the fear of being blacklisted from future contracts keeps them silent at critical moments. This pattern of underreporting not only increases suffering but also motivates non-compliant operators who exploit these vulnerabilities.

India’s legal framework on seafarer welfare and abandonment

In the global shipping industry, vessels have the freedom to register under a flag of convenience, which brings three layers of authority. The first and most dominant one is flag state law- the legal control of the country whose flag it flies. Under Article 94 of UNCLOS, the flag state has exclusive jurisdiction over ships bearing the primary responsibility for all compliance and welfare obligations. The second is port state law, which is when a ship enters a port, the port state can exercise certain powers over the vessel till it leaves. The third layer is the home state jurisdiction, referring to the country of nationality of the seafarer. For Indian seafarers, this means India can offer support, intervene diplomatically, regulate recruitment channels, and ensure ethical placement practices, even when they serve on foreign-flag ships, but India cannot legally control working conditions on those ships or enforce Indian domestic law on them unless the vessel enters an Indian port. 

The Merchant Shipping Act 2025 brings modern and far-reaching standards on safety, manning, seafarer welfare, repatriation, and wages. In addition, the Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers framework imposes strict licensing, continuous monitoring, and compliance obligations on recruiters, including mandatory financial safeguards such as bank guarantees in favour of the seamen’s employment office to cover any non-compliance in the future. Together, the Merchant Shipping Act and Recruitment and Placement Service Rules give a comprehensive regulatory framework for Indian flagged ships. Outside this jurisdiction, India’s practical tools are limited to regulating recruiters and providing assistance.

India’s compliance gap

India, no doubt, has a robust statutory framework on paper, but the real problem lies in enforcement. Compared to high-performing countries, India has stricter provisions but poor enforcement capacity. Even the report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations mentions that India should improve its mechanism for monitoring ongoing compliance with employment agreements, wage payments, and financial security instruments.  One of the reasons why India witnesses the highest number of abandonments is the structural limitation on its legal jurisdiction. The authorities cannot directly regulate foreign shipowners and can intervene only through their control over recruitment and placement agencies, but we can learn from the high-performing maritime countries that regulate through dedicated systems like the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, which enable intervention and oversight of their nationals. Indian embassies put effort, but for them to reach abandoned victims and resolve disputes takes a long time. This challenge also increases because India has a limited number of bilateral agreements with countries or shipowners where Indian crew majorly travels. Countries like the UK, Singapore, and Norway experience fewer cases because of strong enforcement and a digital monitoring system. In contrast, India’s framework is conceptually strong but remains operationally weak in execution.

Proposed reforms

India’s legal framework is robust on paper; what it lacks is implementation. Document-centric inspections, continued presence of unregistered recruitment channels, and limited legal awareness among seafarers collectively increase the enforcement problems that undermine the effectiveness of Indian laws. The implementation is weakest at those points where it needs to be strongest, as recruitment and verification of required documents is the first step of a seafarer’s professional journey. The solution to this problem does not lie in creating new laws, but rather in strengthening the enforcement of existing recruitment and placement regulations and controlling these exit points. Indian seafarers are recruited through agencies that are informal and show incomplete documentation; hence, the authority should increase deterrence for such unregistered organizations and pave the way only for official, registered, and compliant recruitment agencies. Further, the limited frequency of port-state inspections conducted by Indian authorities indicates a gap in effective verification, underscoring the need for stronger and more consistent enforcement. There should be an introduction of real-time digital dashboards so that financial guarantees and wage payment records can be met. A centralized digital registry of all deployed seafarers should be made. It is not just the recruitment side that has problems; many times, the seafarers are not aware of their rights. For this, the authorities should enforce legal counselling before sending them on board.

Conclusion 

Seafarer abandonment is not just a legal issue but a humanitarian one, and for India, the challenge does not lie in the absence of a strong framework but in strong enforcement. By closing enforcement gaps and prioritizing welfare at every stage, especially focusing on a strong foundation that is ethical recruitment, India can transform its maritime workforce from being exposed to abandonment and work for their well-being. As the world’s largest provider of seafarers, India should not operate from a vulnerable position; rather, the scale of our maritime labour should convert into stronger compliance and not compromise.

References

1. International Labour Conference, Report III, Part (A),  Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, 2025.
2. International Transport Workers Federation, Seafarers’ Bulletin 2025.
3. Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.
4. Merchant Shipping (Recruitment & Placement of Seafarers) Rules, 2005.
5. Merchant Shipping Act, 2025.
6. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.