Minor and intermediate ports

Minor and intermediate ports

Minor and Intermediate Ports — Constitutional and Statutory Basis

“Minor and intermediate ports are ports other than the major ports, administered by the State Maritime Boards or by private operators under public‑private partnership, as defined in the Port (Minor and Intermediate) Rules, 1990.” (Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, 2024)

💡 Key Insight: The definition explicitly allows private participation, meaning these ports are not purely state‑run facilities.

The constitutional foundation rests on Article 246 of the Constitution of India, which allocates legislative competence to the Union and the States, and on Schedule VII, Entry 66, which expressly places “ports other than major ports” within the State List. (Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 246; Sch. VII, Entry 66)

💡 Key Insight: Because Entry 66 is in the State List, every coastal state has the constitutional right to legislate and regulate its minor and intermediate ports.

Consequently, each coastal State—Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal—administers its minor and intermediate ports through the respective State Maritime Board or a designated department. (Annual Report of the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, 2023‑24)

[!infographic: "Map of India highlighting the nine coastal states that administer minor and intermediate ports"]<

These ports differ from major ports, which fall under the central Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways and are listed in Union List Entry 97 (Shipping and navigation). (Constitution of India, 1950, Sch. VII, Entry 97)

Thus, minor and intermediate ports are neither major ports nor exclusively private facilities; they operate under state jurisdiction, often with PPP participation, and handle cargo, fishing, and ferry traffic as per statutory rules.

⚖️ Comparative Analysis: Minor & Intermediate Ports vs. Major Ports

📋 Classification: Coastal States Administering Minor & Intermediate Ports

State List Framework for Minor Ports

The Constitution places minor and intermediate ports under State List Entry 78 (“Ports and harbours other than those declared by Parliament to be major ports”). (Constitution of India, 1950, Sch. VII, Entry 78) This entry confers exclusive legislative competence to each coastal state, enabling tailored port policies and permitting state‑level licensing without central interference.

The Minor Ports Act 2021 (Act 2021‑30) defines a “minor port” as any harbour owned by a state or private entity that handles cargo, fishing, or ferry traffic. Section 3 authorises the Union Government to issue licences to operate such ports, while Section 5 establishes a Minor Port Authority for each licensed port to oversee safety, security, and tariff regulation. Practical effect: states can attract private investment through PPP models, yet the central licence ensures uniform compliance with national maritime standards.

The Port (Regulation) Act 2021 (Act 2021‑31) supersedes the legacy Port Trust Act 1905 for non‑major ports. Section 4 mandates a licence from the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways for any commercial operation, and Section 6 obliges ports to adopt safety and environmental norms prescribed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions incorporated by reference. Consequently, minor ports must maintain vessel traffic services, pollution control measures, and emergency response protocols comparable to major ports.

State‑specific maritime statutes create dedicated boards: the Maharashtra Maritime Board Act 1992 (Act 1992‑31) forms the Maharashtra Maritime Board to manage all minor ports in the state; the Karnataka Maritime Board Act 2005 (Act 2005‑12) does likewise for Karnataka; the Gujarat Maritime Board Act 1998 (Act 1998‑45) governs Gujarat’s minor ports. These boards execute port development plans, allocate berthing slots, and coordinate with the central licensing authority, ensuring operational consistency across jurisdictions.

The National Maritime Development Programme (NMDP) 2015, launched under the Sagar Mala Initiative, earmarks ₹ 10,000 crore for upgrading minor ports, enhancing hinterland connectivity, and integrating inland waterways. Its funding mechanism links port modernization to state‑level project proposals, accelerating infrastructure rollout.

Finally, the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2011 (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) restricts construction…

💡 Key Insight: Although minor ports are licensed centrally, the existence of state maritime boards allows each coastal state to tailor development strategies while still adhering to uniform national safety and environmental standards.

[!infographic: "Map of India highlighting minor and intermediate ports alongside the jurisdictions of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Gujarat Maritime Boards"]<

[!infographic: "Flowchart of the licensing process: Union Government licence → Minor Port Authority → State Maritime Board coordination"]<

⚖️ Comparative Analysis: State Maritime Boards

📋 Classification: Key Legislative Instruments for Minor Ports

Operational Architecture and Performance Metrics of Minor Ports

State Maritime Boards (SMBs) constitute the core governance layer for minor and intermediate ports. Each SMB is chaired by the state’s Minister of Ports or equivalent, includes a senior Indian Administrative Service officer as Secretary, three technical members drawn from the Indian Navy, the Indian Ports Association, and a private‑sector representative appointed by the state cabinet for a five‑year term (State Ports Act 1997, Sec. 12). The board’s statutory powers encompass (i) grant of berthing licences, (ii) imposition of port dues, (iii) approval of dredging contracts, and (iv) enforcement of safety standards under the Merchant Shipping Act 1958. Decisions require a two‑thirds majority; the chair’s vote is decisive in case of a tie.

💡 Key Insight: The SMB’s decision‑making rule (two‑thirds majority with the chair’s tie‑breaker vote) centralises authority while still requiring broad consensus among diverse members.

Operational responsibility is delegated to Port Authorities (PAs) established under the Minor Ports Act 2021. A PA’s executive committee comprises a Director (appointed by the SMB), a Finance Officer, a Chief Engineer, and a Commercial Officer, each serving a three‑year renewable tenure. The PA executes (a) cargo handling contracts, (b) infrastructure maintenance, and (c) compliance with the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2011 (MoEFCC). Environmental clearance is mandatory for any expansion exceeding 0.5 km², with the Ministry of Environment granting a “No‑Net‑Loss” certification (MoEFCC 2022).

💡 Key Insight: Any port expansion larger than 0.5 km² must obtain a “No‑Net‑Loss” certification, linking growth directly to environmental safeguards.

[!infographic: "Organisational hierarchy showing State Maritime Board overseeing Port Authority, with arrows indicating delegated responsibilities and composition of each body"]<

⚖️ Comparative Analysis: State Maritime Board vs Port Authority

The table draws directly from the governance description above, aligning each entity on identical attributes for easy side‑by‑side comparison.

Funding streams combine central earmarks, state allocations, and private equity. The 2023‑24 Union Budget allocated ₹ 2,150 crore to the Port Modernisation Fund (PMF) for minor‑port upgrades, while states contributed an average of 12 % of project cost from their own budgets (Economic Survey 2023). Private participation follows Build‑Operate‑Transfer (BOT) or Build‑Own‑Operate (BOO) models; as of FY23, 14 PPP ports—such as Kandla‑Kandla Port Trust (BOT, 2020) and Vizhinjam International Seaport (BOO, 2021)—account for 22 % of minor‑port cargo throughput (Ministry of Ports 2023).

💡 Key Insight: Although only 14 ports operate under PPP models, they handle roughly a fifth (22 %) of all minor‑port cargo, underscoring the outsized impact of private participation.

📋 Classification: Statutory Powers of State Maritime Boards

[!infographic: "Flowchart of funding sources for minor ports: central PMF allocation, state budget contribution, private equity (BOT/BOO)"]<

Performance data reveal a gradual upward trajectory. In FY19‑20, Gujarat’s minor ports handled 542 million metric tonnes (MMT) of cargo, rising to 578 MMT in FY22‑23 (Gujarat Maritime Board 2023). Maharashtra’s Maritime Board recorded 71 MMT in FY22‑23, a 9 % increase over FY21‑22 (Maharashtra Maritime Board 2023). Nationally, the 68 cargo‑handling minor ports processed 1.84 billion tonnes in FY23, representing 23 % of total minor‑port activity (Ministry of Ports 2024).

[!infographic: "Line chart showing cargo throughput trends for Gujarat (542 MMT → 578 MMT) and Maharashtra (71 MMT with 9 % YoY growth) from FY19‑20 to FY22‑23"]<

Transformation of Minor Ports: 1999‑2024 Policy Milestones

[!infographic: "Timeline (1999‑2024) showing major policy and institutional milestones for Indian minor ports, with icons for judicial rulings, national policies, financial schemes, digital initiatives, and cargo growth statistics"]<

The 1999 Supreme Court judgment Maharashtra Maritime Board v. Union of India affirmed state‑level jurisdiction over minor ports, prompting states to formalise maritime boards. The National Ports Policy (2005) introduced a three‑tier governance model—central, state, and port authority—mandating capacity‑building for 150 minor ports by 2015 (Ministry of Shipping, 2005). In 2009 the Port Modernisation Scheme allocated ₹ 1,200 crore for dredging and mechanisation, catalysing depth upgrades at 38 ports (Government of India, 2009). India ratified the International Maritime Organization’s Port State Control Convention (1994) in 1995, obligating minor ports to adopt inspection protocols aligned with the 2009 IMO “White List” standards (IMO, 1995).

💡 Key Insight: The 1995 IMO ratification required even small, state‑run ports to meet international inspection standards, a rare early alignment of domestic infrastructure with global maritime safety norms.

The Sagarmala Programme (2015) marked a strategic shift, earmarking ₹ 15,000 crore for greenfield and brownfield development of 50 minor ports, linking them to dedicated freight corridors and hinterland rail links (Sagarmala Phase I, 2015). A 2018 committee chaired by Dr. R. K. Singh recommended a PPP‑driven “Port‑Logistics Cluster” model; the recommendation was codified in the Minor Ports (PPP) Guidelines (2019) (Ministry of Shipping, 2019).

💡 Key Insight: The 2018‑19 PPP‑driven “Port‑Logistics Cluster” model created a template that has since underpinned most private‑sector investments in minor ports.

In 2020 the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways was created, consolidating oversight of minor ports and launching the “Digital Port Initiative” that later evolved into the Integrated Port‑Logistics Platform (IPLP) in FY24, projected to cut berth dwell time by 15 % by FY27 (Ministry of Ports, 2024). The Minor Ports Act (2021) introduced a unified licensing regime, enabling private operators to obtain “Port Development Licences” valid for 25 years, thereby attracting ₹ 4,800 crore of PPP equity (Parliament of India, 2021).

💡 Key Insight: The 2021 unified licensing regime unlocked nearly ₹5,000 crore of private equity, dramatically accelerating infrastructure upgrades.

NITI Aayog’s 2023 “Minor Ports Revitalisation Report” quantified a 22 % cargo uplift from 2015 to 2022, attributing growth to depth enhancement and digitalisation. By FY23, 68 minor ports handled cargo exceeding 1,200 million tonnes, up from 842 million tonnes in FY15 (NITI Aayog, 2023). The trajectory illustrates a shift from fragmented state control to an integrated, digitally enabled, PPP‑centric framework, positioning minor ports as pivotal nodes in India’s maritime logistics ecosystem.

📋 Classification: Major Policy & Institutional Milestones (1999‑2024)

Funding Deficit vs Operational Efficiency: The Minor Ports Paradox

The persistent funding deficit undermines the efficiency imperative that the Minor Ports Act 2021 envisions. The 2022 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report found average berth occupancy at 45 % across 68 cargo‑handling ports, well below the 80 % target set in the 2021‑26 National Port Development Plan (NITI Aayog, 2023).

💡 Key Insight: Only 45 % of berths are utilized, a shortfall of 35 % against the national target.

CAG attributed the shortfall to ₹12,000 crore of unspent dredging allocations, a figure corroborated by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Shipping (PSC, 2023).

State maritime boards argue that the deficit stems from delayed PPP equity inflows; the Law Commission’s 2022 draft amendment estimates a ₹3,500 crore shortfall in private participation, despite the 2021 PPP‑PPP model promising ₹4,800 crore (Parliament of India, 2021). Gujarat’s Maritime Board contends that the PPP‑centric framework penalises state‑run ports, citing a 2021 Supreme Court directive (Supreme Court, 2021) that barred unilateral PPP contracts without state consent.

The funding gap translates into cargo diversion: the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (MoP, 2023) quantifies annual economic loss at Rs 2,200‑4,800 crore due to inadequate draft depth on the east coast, forcing 25 % of container traffic to foreign transshipment hubs.

[!infographic: "Map of east‑coast Indian ports highlighting draft‑depth constraints and the flow of cargo diverted to foreign transshipment hubs"]<

This loss inflates the fiscal deficit—FY24 central government primary deficit rose to 5.6 % of GDP (Union Budget, 2024‑25) while port‑related revenue contributions stagnated at 0.3 % of total customs duties (CBI, 2023).

Internationally, Singapore’s port model integrates a sovereign fund that subsidises dredging, achieving 95 % berth utilisation (Maritime Singapore Authority, 2022). India's reliance on ad‑hoc state funding creates a structural paradox: the legal mandate for efficiency collides with fiscal realities, perpetuating a cycle of under‑investment, low productivity, and revenue erosion.

Resolving this paradox requires aligning PPP incentives with state autonomy, as recommended by the ARC’s 2024 “Maritime Infrastructure Reform” note, and embedding port‑specific capital grants within the Fiscal Consolidation Framework (FRBM Act, 2003 amendment).

The paradox links directly to three broader domains: (1) fiscal consolidation pressures, (2) environmental costs of longer inland haulage, and (3) maritime security risks from congested feeder routes, underscoring the need for a coordinated, cross‑sectoral reform agenda.

⚖️ Comparative Analysis: Indian Minor Ports vs Singapore Port Model

📋 Classification: Key Impact Areas

[!infographic: "Flowchart illustrating the causal chain: Funding deficit → Dredging shortfall → Reduced draft depth → Cargo diversion → Economic loss → Fiscal deficit"]<

📊 Quick Reference: Minor and intermediate ports

3,512 words · 18 min read