# Katchatheevu Island: What the 1974 and 1976 India–Sri Lanka Agreements Settled, and How Berubari Differs

By Shivam Singh, Founder & Mentor, Minimalist IAS · Published 13 Oct 2026 · Updated 14 Oct 2026
Source: https://www.minimalistias.com/blog/katchatheevu-island-1974-1976-agreements-upsc

> The Supreme Court has again heard petitions against the 1974 and 1976 agreements that placed Katchatheevu on the Sri Lankan side. This explainer sets out what each agreement settled, why Berubari is a different case, and what UPSC can ask.

**Katchatheevu is a small, uninhabited island in the Palk Strait that India and Sri Lanka placed on the Sri Lankan side of their maritime boundary in 1974; a second agreement in 1976 extended that boundary southwards to the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal.** The Supreme Court is hearing petitions that call the cession unconstitutional, while the Centre says it will not reopen either agreement.

> **Why in news:** The Centre told the Supreme Court that it does not want to reopen the 1974 and 1976 agreements with Sri Lanka, citing the “excellent relationship” between the two countries. The petitions, pending since 2008, are listed again in February 2027. The Bench also asked that Tamil Nadu’s fishermen be sensitised against crossing into Sri Lankan waters, and did not rule on the validity of the agreements.

**Updated (October 2026):** Added the latest Supreme Court hearing, a short bridge between each section, a Prelims traps block and a 60-second revision.

## Key facts at a glance

- **Location:** Palk Strait, between Rameswaram (India) and the Sri Lankan island of Delft; not in the Gulf of Mannar.
- **Size and distance:** about 285 acres; about 33 km from Rameswaram (widely cited figures, sources vary).
- **Only structure:** St. Anthony’s church, with an annual festival that draws pilgrims from both countries.
- **Before 1974:** both sides claimed it; the Indian claim rested on the old Ramnad estate.
- **Case:** W.P.(C) 561 of 2008, filed by the late M. Karunanidhi; T.R. Baalu was allowed to continue it in 2025.

## What did the 1974 and 1976 agreements settle?

The court case makes sense only once you know what the two treaties actually did, and they did different things.

*Figure: Comparison of the two agreements: the 1974 agreement fixed the boundary from Palk Strait to Adam’s Bridge and placed Katchatheevu on the Sri Lankan side; the 1976 agreement extended it to the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal, with an exchange of letters on fishing and Wadge Bank. The island is about 285 acres, about 33 km from Rameswaram.*

|  | 1974 agreement | 1976 agreement |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Waters | Palk Strait to Adam’s Bridge (historic waters) | Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal |
| Main effect | Boundary line drawn; each side has sovereignty over waters and islands on its own side, so Katchatheevu is Sri Lankan | Boundary extended by coordinates; each side has sovereign rights over the EEZ and shelf on its side |
| Pilgrims and fishermen | Article 5: Indian pilgrims and fishermen may visit the island as before, with no Sri Lankan visa | No such clause; an exchange of letters regulates fishing, including Wadge Bank |
| Vessels | Article 6: vessels keep the rights they traditionally enjoyed in each other’s waters | Each side’s EEZ resources belong to it; navigation rights are respected |

- **Wadge Bank:** the fishing ground off Kanyakumari lies in India’s EEZ; a 1976 exchange of letters regulated Sri Lankan fishing there.
- **The disputed reading:** Tamil Nadu reads “traditional rights” in Article 6 as including fishing; Sri Lanka says Articles 5 and 6 give no fishing rights in its waters, and the Centre told a court in 2014 that Indian fishermen have none around the island.

## Is this the Berubari case again?

The petitioners’ argument is that the 1974 agreement gave away Indian land, which brings in two earlier Supreme Court rulings.

- **Berubari (1960):** in a Presidential reference, the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot cede Indian territory under Article 3; a Constitution amendment under Article 368 is needed → the 9th Amendment, 1960.
- **Rann of Kutch (1969):** the Court held that settling a disputed boundary is not a cession of territory, so Berubari did not apply.
- **Katchatheevu petitioners say:** the island was Indian, so a constitutional amendment was needed and never made.
- **The Centre says:** no Indian territory was ceded because the area was disputed and never demarcated; no amendment was needed.
- **Analogy:** selling a plot you own needs a formal deed (Berubari); fixing a boundary stone between disputing neighbours is a survey, not a sale (Kutch). The case turns on which one Katchatheevu was.

*Figure: Timeline: Berubari opinion and the 9th Amendment in 1960; Rann of Kutch ruling in 1969; boundary agreement in historic waters in 1974; Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal agreement in 1976; Supreme Court petition in 2008; the Centre’s stand in 2014; hearing in October 2026 with the next listing in February 2027.*

## What are the fishermen’s stakes and Sri Lanka’s position?

Behind the legal argument is a livelihood problem that explains why the issue keeps returning to court.

- **Livelihood:** Tamil Nadu fishermen cross the boundary line in search of fish; Sri Lanka regularly arrests them and seizes boats.
- **Centre’s line in court:** stocks on the Indian side are depleted; it works through diplomatic channels.
- **Sri Lanka:** treats the island as settled territory since 1974; its Foreign Minister said in 2025 that it will never be ceded.
- **Sri Lankan law:** a 2017 amendment (Act No. 11 of 2017) made bottom trawling an offence in its waters.

## What does UPSC ask on Katchatheevu?

Prelims tests the facts the two treaties are easiest to confuse on; Mains tests how you join law, diplomacy and Centre–State politics.

> **Prelims traps**

> **1. Katchatheevu lies in the Palk Strait, not the Gulf of Mannar; the 1974 line runs from Palk Strait to Adam’s Bridge.**

> **2. 1974 fixed the Palk waters and placed the island; 1976 extended the line to the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal.**

> **3. Article 5 of the 1974 agreement covers visits by Indian fishermen and pilgrims, not a right to fish.**

> **4. Berubari needed an amendment because it was cession; the Centre calls Katchatheevu a boundary settlement.**

**GS Paper II** (India and its neighbourhood; bilateral agreements; Centre–State relations). Foreign affairs and treaties are Union subjects (Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entries 10 and 14), and fisheries beyond territorial waters are too (Entry 57), yet Tamil Nadu’s fishermen and politics shape the debate. In Mains, set the legal question (Article 368, Berubari, Kutch) beside the diplomatic one, and close with joint management of the Palk Bay fishery as the way forward.

## Mentor’s note

Here is how to turn the above into marks.

- **Don’t write that India “gifted” the island without the legal frame.** The Centre’s position is that it was a disputed area, so this is a boundary settlement; state the petitioners’ opposite view too.
- **Keep 1974 and 1976 apart.** The 1974 pact places the island; the 1976 pact is the Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal line, and the fishing bar sits in the exchange of letters.
- **Don’t take sides.** Present the legal argument, the livelihood cost and a cooperative way forward, with Berubari versus Kutch as your legal anchor.
- **Don’t claim a ruling.** The Supreme Court has not decided the validity of either agreement.

## 60-second revision

- **Which waters does the 1974 line cover?** Palk Strait to Adam’s Bridge.
- **What did 1976 add?** The Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal line; the fishing bar is in the letters.
- **Berubari or Kutch: which needed an Article 368 amendment?** Berubari, because it was cession.
- **Where is Wadge Bank?** Off Kanyakumari, in India’s EEZ.
- **What is the case status?** Pending; no ruling; listed again in February 2027.

## Practice: Prelims MCQ

**Consider the following statements:**

1. **Katchatheevu lies in the Palk Strait.**
2. **The 1974 India–Sri Lanka agreement fixed the maritime boundary only in the Gulf of Mannar.**
3. **Article 5 of the 1974 agreement lets Indian pilgrims visit Katchatheevu without a Sri Lankan visa.**
4. **In the Berubari reference (1960), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could cede Indian territory to a foreign country by a law under Article 3.**

**How many of the above statements are correct?  
(a) Only one  
(b) Only two  
(c) Only three  
(d) All four**

**Answer: (b) Only two**

**Explanation:**

**Statement 1 is correct:** the island lies in the Palk Strait, north of Rameswaram.

**Statement 2 is incorrect:** the 1974 line runs from Palk Strait to Adam’s Bridge; the Gulf of Mannar came in 1976.

**Statement 3 is correct:** Article 5 says Indian fishermen and pilgrims will have access as before, without travel documents or visas.

**Statement 4 is incorrect:** the Court held that Article 3 does not allow cession to a foreign country and that an Article 368 amendment is needed.

## Practice: Mains question

> **Examine the legal and diplomatic dimensions of the Katchatheevu question. How can India balance the livelihood of Tamil Nadu’s fishermen with its neighbourhood policy? (Answer in 250 words; 15 Marks)**

## Terms to know

- **Adam’s Bridge:** chain of shoals between India and Sri Lanka, the southern end of the 1974 line
- **Wadge Bank:** fishing ground off Kanyakumari
- **Historic waters:** waters a state claims on long-standing use, here the Palk Strait and Palk Bay

## Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

### Who owns Katchatheevu island now?

Katchatheevu is an uninhabited island of about 285 acres in the Palk Strait. Under the 1974 India–Sri Lanka agreement it lies on the Sri Lankan side, and Sri Lanka treats the matter as settled.

### What did the 1974 and 1976 agreements say?

The 1974 agreement fixed the boundary from the Palk Strait to Adam’s Bridge and gave Indian pilgrims and fishermen access to visit the island. The 1976 agreement extended the line to the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal.

### Why was no constitutional amendment made for Katchatheevu?

The Centre says no Indian territory was ceded because the area was disputed and never demarcated. Petitioners cite the Berubari opinion; the Supreme Court has not decided the point.

### Can Indian fishermen fish near Katchatheevu?

The Centre told a court in 2014 that they have no fishing rights there. The 1974 agreement gives access to visit the island, and Tamil Nadu reads “traditional rights” more widely.

## Related reading

- [J&K statehood resolution and Article 3](https://www.minimalistias.com/blog/jammu-kashmir-statehood-resolution-article-3), on how Parliament changes boundaries inside India
- [The CBI, State consent and federalism](https://www.minimalistias.com/blog/cbi-dspe-act-state-consent-upsc-notes), on Centre–State balance
- [Practise previous-year questions on India’s neighbourhood in the free PYQ vault](https://www.minimalistias.com/pyqs)
- [All Daily UPSC Briefs](https://www.minimalistias.com/resources/daily-brief)

## Sources

- [Boundary in Historic Waters Agreement, India–Sri Lanka, 1974 (UN DOALOS)](https://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/LKA-IND1974BW.PDF)
- [Maritime Boundary Agreement, Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal, 1976 (UN DOALOS)](https://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/LKA-IND1976MB.PDF)
- [Lok Sabha statement on the Sri Lanka agreements, March 1976](https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/844648/1/05_XVI_24-03-1976_p69_p69_PII.pdf)
- [Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v Union of India, 1969](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1310955/)
- [Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2017, Sri Lanka](https://documents.gov.lk/view/acts/2017/7/11-2017_E.pdf)
- [Seventh Schedule, Union List, Constitution of India](https://www.constitutionofindia.net/schedules/list-i-union-list/)

From [The Daily UPSC Brief](https://www.minimalistias.com/resources/daily-brief), 12 October 2026 — by Shivam Singh.

---
Minimalist IAS — free UPSC study material and one-to-one mentorship. Canonical page: https://www.minimalistias.com/blog/katchatheevu-island-1974-1976-agreements-upsc