Dissanayake highlights ‘good relations’ with India, points to New Delhi’s Katchatheevu stance

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake presented Katchatheevu as both a sovereignty issue and a sign of stable Sri Lankan-Indian relations. Speaking at a ruling-coalition rally, he said India’s Central government had acknowledged before the Supreme Court that the island belongs to Sri Lanka. He also highlighted Sri Lanka’s neutral foreign policy and commitment to good governance.

His comments followed the Supreme Court hearing on petitions challenging the island’s transfer in the 1970s. India’s Attorney General said New Delhi had excellent relations with Sri Lanka and did not intend to reopen the 1974 and 1976 agreements. The court also urged New Delhi and Tamil Nadu to sensitise fishermen against crossing into Sri Lankan waters.

Dissanayake repeated an assurance that Sri Lanka would not allow its airspace, land, or sea to threaten India. The case is scheduled for its next hearing in February 2027. The issue therefore remains legally contested in India, even as both governments publicly emphasise cooperation.

Katchatheevu is a small, uninhabited island in the Palk Strait, the narrow sea between southeastern India and northern Sri Lanka. It matters because it sits close to the International Maritime Boundary Line and near fishing grounds used by boats from both countries. The article identifies it as being on Sri Lanka’s side of that boundary.

The source does not provide the island’s exact coordinates or dimensions. Established geographic references place it roughly 14 nautical miles from Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu and about 10.5 nautical miles from Delft Island in Sri Lanka. It is approximately 1.6 kilometres long and 0.3 kilometres wide, making it very small despite its political importance.

That location helps explain the repeated disputes. Indian fishermen travel beyond the boundary toward resource-rich waters near Sri Lanka’s northern coast. Sri Lankan authorities treat such crossings as illegal fishing, while Indian politicians frequently raise arrests and access concerns. The island remains central to those arguments.

The 1974 India-Sri Lanka agreement settled the island’s ownership by recognising Katchatheevu as part of Sri Lanka. The 1976 agreement and related exchange of letters then addressed maritime boundaries in the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannar. Together, these arrangements placed the island and surrounding waters within a defined legal framework.

The practical mechanism was a maritime boundary. Waters on Sri Lanka’s side came under Sri Lankan jurisdiction, while Indian waters remained under India’s jurisdiction. The 1976 arrangements are generally understood to mean that fishermen from one country could not freely fish in the other country’s maritime zone. The article itself names the agreements but does not describe all their provisions.

Those decisions still shape today’s disputes. Indian fishermen often cross the International Maritime Boundary Line while seeking productive waters near Sri Lanka’s northern coast. Sri Lankan authorities can treat this as illegal fishing, leading to arrests. India’s Attorney General told the court that New Delhi did not intend reopening the agreements, despite petitions challenging the transfer.

The petitions argue that transferring Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka in the 1970s was unconstitutional. They challenge the legal basis of the 1974 and 1976 arrangements, which India has treated as governing the island and nearby maritime boundaries. The dispute matters because those arrangements affect sovereignty, fishing access, and enforcement.

During the recent hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani presented the Union government’s position. According to reports cited in the article, he said India had excellent relations with Sri Lanka and did not intend to reopen the two agreements. This signals that the government prefers preserving the existing settlement rather than renegotiating it through the court case.

The Supreme Court did not finally decide the petitions during that hearing. The case is listed next for February 2027. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva also noted that New Delhi and Tamil Nadu should sensitise fishermen to avoid crossing into Sri Lankan waters. The legal challenge therefore continues alongside diplomatic caution.

When Tamil Nadu boats cross the International Maritime Boundary Line, Sri Lankan authorities may treat them as illegally fishing in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. The article says Indian fishermen are frequently arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy on those charges. These incidents turn a fishing trip into a diplomatic and livelihood dispute.

The article identifies bottom trawling as a key mechanism. Boats drag gear along the seabed to capture marine resources, and Indian fishermen use this destructive method in waters along Sri Lanka’s northern coast. Such trawling can damage seabed habitats, reduce future catches, and affect smaller-scale Sri Lankan fishers. The article does not detail individual community losses; those environmental effects are established fisheries knowledge.

The immediate reality is continuing tension around arrests, access, and resources. Sri Lanka’s Fisheries Minister welcomed the Attorney General’s remarks and the court’s call to sensitise fishermen. Unless boats stop crossing and destructive fishing declines, enforcement disputes and pressure on shared fishing grounds are likely to continue.

Katchatheevu’s importance is striking because the island itself is very small. Standard geographic references place it approximately 14 nautical miles from Rameswaram on India’s Tamil Nadu coast and about 10.5 nautical miles from Sri Lanka’s Delft Island. The article only says it is close to the International Maritime Boundary Line and on Sri Lanka’s side.

The island measures roughly 1.6 kilometres in length and 0.3 kilometres in width. Those measurements are established geographic information, not figures supplied in the article. Its small size does not make it insignificant. Its position helps define nearby maritime jurisdiction and places it close to fishing grounds used by Indian boats.

That combination of proximity and legal importance drives the dispute. Fishermen can travel beyond the boundary while pursuing marine resources along Sri Lanka’s northern coast. Sri Lankan enforcement then intersects with Indian political demands and court petitions. The island’s location ensures that even a tiny territory remains a recurring issue in India-Sri Lanka relations.

International maritime boundaries are agreed lines that divide a state’s legal authority at sea. They help determine which country controls nearby waters, regulates fishing, protects marine resources, and investigates suspected offences. In the Katchatheevu dispute, the boundary matters because the island lies close to the line separating Indian and Sri Lankan waters.

The key mechanism is jurisdiction. A boat operating on Sri Lanka’s side can be subject to Sri Lankan fishing rules and enforcement, even if it comes from Tamil Nadu. The article says Indian fishermen often cross well beyond the International Maritime Boundary Line and use bottom trawling near Sri Lanka’s northern coast. Sri Lankan authorities consequently make arrests for illegal fishing.

Boundaries do not remove every dispute. Fishermen may contest where the line lies, how agreements should be interpreted, or whether traditional access should continue. The Supreme Court urged New Delhi and Tamil Nadu to sensitise fishermen. India’s government, meanwhile, said it would not reopen the agreements, making compliance and diplomatic management central to what happens next.