Judgment : In the context of a marine casualty incident involving disappearance of a tug "Jupiter 6", the members of the families of some of the missing Indian crew of that tug have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Some of the prayers in the petition relate to the crew members of the tug in question, and the others relate to the general responsibility of the Indian Government in regard to such incidents. 2. On 10.11.2006, we had issued notice to ascertain the extent of participation of the Indian Government in the marine casualty investigation of the said tug and generally the steps that can be taken in that behalf. After considering the material placed in pursuance of the orders of the Court and the serious questions involved relating to large number of Indian seamen working in foreign vessels, we are of the view that the scope of enquiry in the writ petition requires to be broadened. 3. Whenever a marine casualty takes place, generally three Governments are involved in the investigation, that is, the flag State (Country in which the ship is registered), the substantially interested States (the country to which the crew belong) and the coastal State (if the incident occurred in the coastal waters). The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas ratified by the Indian Government and the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents (IMO Assembly Resolution A.849) adopted by the Indian Government are relevant in this behalf. These disclose certain obligations on the part of the Indian Government as a substantially interested State when crew members belonging to India are involved in the marine casualty incident. The grievance and complaint made in this petition is that if the Indian Government and the Managers of the tug (respondents 4 and 5) had acted with necessary care and expedition, in all probability the lives of the crew members of the tug could have been saved. While the International Conventions and Codes adopted by the Indian Government are broad enough to cover all contingencies, it is submitted that there is total non-compliance with the requirements of those Conventions/Codes by the Indian Government. 4. While the International Conventions and Codes adopted by the Indian Government are broad enough to cover all contingencies, it is submitted that there is total non-compliance with the requirements of those Conventions/Codes by the Indian Government. 4. The office of Director General of Shipping has issued M.S. Notice No.26 of 2002 dated 10.10.2002 in regard to the procedure to be followed in the event of marine casualties and incidents involving Indian citizens on board of foreign flag vessels. To ascertain whether there is any basis for the grievance put forth by the petitioners, we, therefore, direct the Directorate to collect, analyse and prepare a report with reference to the following information and file the same with an affidavit of a responsible officer from the office of the Director General of Shipping. (a) How many reports of marine casualties have been received by the Indian Government after 10.10.2002 involving Indian citizens on board of foreign flag vessels and how many are received within 48 hours of the occurrence of the incident as required by the Directorate? (b) In how many of such cases reports have been received by the Directorate from the manning agents of the ships in India who recruited the seafarers as required by clause 5(a) and (b) of M.S. Notice dated 10.10.2002? (c) In how many cases, Indian Government has been invited to participate in the marine casualty investigation by the lead State or the flag State (as required by paras 5.2, 6.3 and 9.1 of the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents)? (d) In how many cases the Indian Government has sent its comments within 30 days from the date of receiving the draft of the final report from the lead investigating State (as required by clause 12.1 of the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents) to enable the lead investigating State to incorporate/amend/modify the final report? (e) In how many cases the Indian Government has made available to the public the final report in regard to marine casualty incidents and, if so, the period and the manner in which it has been so made public (as required by clause 12.3 of the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents)? (e) In how many cases the Indian Government has made available to the public the final report in regard to marine casualty incidents and, if so, the period and the manner in which it has been so made public (as required by clause 12.3 of the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents)? (f) In how many cases Indian Government has taken action against the recruiting agents/manning agents/managers of the foreign flag ships which employed Indian crew and in what manner it has safeguarded the interest of the Indian crew (particularly in view of its M.S. Notice No.13 of 2005 dated 25.10.2005 of the Directorate which admits the receipt of several complaints about the failure of shipping companies and recruiting agents of Indian seafarers in reporting marine casualties involving them to the Government and the family members) for non-compliance with its direction? The above information, if made available, will enable us to decide whether there is really implementation or compliance of the Conventions and Codes relating to marine casualty incidents. We find that the counter affidavit filed by the Indian Government does not furnish necessary and sufficient details. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the ship managers and the learned ASG may also submit their suggestions for proper and better implementation of the existing Conventions and Codes. The pendency of this petition or any further investigation in the matter by any agency should not come in the way of either the Insurers/owners/managers of the tug paying compensation to the family members of the missing crew. In fact, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5 stated that they have offered interim compensation to the families. The petitioners deny that any such offer was made. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 stated that even now respondents 4 and 5 are willing and ready to make the interim payment without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties and the same will be despatched within 10 days from today and that they will get in touch with the insurers for release of the amounts to the missing crew family members expeditiously. We make it clear that receipt of any amount by the family members of the missing crew may receive any compensation tendered or paid by the managers or insurers will be without prejudice and receipt of such payment will not prejudice their case in any manner. List after four weeks.