Why can’t helicopters be used for sea drowning rescue operations, asks Madras High Court

Representational image. File

The Madras High Court has questioned why helicopters cannot be pressed into service for drowning rescue operations at the Marina and other beaches spread along the East Coast in Chennai and Chengalpattu districts as well as the coastal zones in other districts.

Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira and Justice B. Karthikeyan raised the query during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed by K. Gopal of Madhavaram in Chennai. The petitioner’s 17-year-old son G. Santhosh had gone for swimming in the Marina on July 5, 2026 but had not returned since then.

Impressing upon the need for the Central as well as State agencies to work in coordination in the operations to rescue those who get swept away by high tides, the judges suo motu impleaded the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) headed by the Director General of Indian Coast Guard.

They requested Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan to obtain instructions from the newly-impleaded respondent by November 20 with respect to the nature of action taken by the central body to rescue those who venture into the sea and get swept away.

Answering a volley of other questions thrown by the judges, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) M. Mohamed Riyaz told the court that as many as 50 police personnel from the 12th battalion of Tamil Nadu Special Police get deployed every day at the Marina Beach to control the crowd.

Seven jet skis, an all terrain motor vehicle and two mini tractors were also maintained in Chennai Division for the safety of people who visit the beaches. Further, two 12 ton boats belonging to Coastal Security Group keep patrolling the coast from Pazhaverkadu to Neelankarai, the APP said.

When Justice Chandira wanted to know about the operation of CCTV cameras in the city limits, he was told that the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) was spread over 426 sq.km and that the civic body had installed 468 surveillance cameras in public places across the city limits.

On learning that 73 of those cameras were dysfunctional, the Division Bench wrote: “Cameras not being in a functional state, whatever be the reason, cannot be countenanced. Needless to state that the core raison d’être for installation of CCTV cameras is to ensure alacritous action following an untoward incident. When the CCTV cameras remain non-functional, then, the very object behind installation becomes otiose, for which, the Chennai Corporation becomes answerable.”

The judges said, the issue gains importance since the petitioner’s son remains missing till date though two of his friends, who had gone along with him for swimming in the Marina beach, had been rescued. They insisted upon putting in place an effective mechanism in which the central as well as the State agencies could spring into action in no time to save the lives of fishermen and others who get caught in the high tides.

The Bench decided to hear the MRCC functioning under the National Maritime Search and Rescue Coordinating Authority on November 20 before passing further orders in the case.