Eroding Shores, Silenced Protests: A Fact-Finding Report on the Honnavar Port Project
A Follow-up Fact-Finding Report by All India Central Council
of Trade Unions (AICCTU), FridaysForFuture – Karnataka
(FFF-K) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
Executive Summary
Honnavar, a coastal taluk in the Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka, is a beautiful landscape. Nestled between the Sharavathi River and the Arabian Sea, it harbours an estuarine ecosystem and is home to endangered species such as the Olive Ridley turtle. It supports a thriving traditional fishing economy and a vibrant community whose lives and livelihoods are inextricably tied to this coastline.
Since 2010, when Honnavar Port Private Limited (HPPL) was granted permission to develop a commercial port in Kasarkod, the region has witnessed growing unease and resistance. The port is planned across 44 hectares of land belonging to five fishing villages -Tonka 1, Tonka 2, Pavinkurva, Mallukurva and Honnavar Rural - without the consent of the local community or adherence to constitutionally mandated environmental safeguards.
A 2024 fact-finding report had already laid bare a pattern of procedural lapses and human rights violations. However, developments in 2025 - including intensified police action, land surveys and the construction of an access road through coastal commons - have escalated the crisis. What emerges is a textbook case of how development, when driven by private interests and state complicity, can systematically dismantle ecological safeguards and community rights.
This follow-up fact-finding was initiated by a coalition of civil society organizations - All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU), Fridays For Future Karnataka (FFF-K), and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) - to document more recent violations and bring the widest possible attention to the resilience and demands of the Honnavar fisher community. Through on-ground interviews, site visits, and engagement with the state authorities, the team recorded instances of state repression, legal evasions and deepening socio-ecological distress.
This report presents an updated account of the ongoing situation in Honnavar - documenting the Community's sustained opposition and the response of the state and corporate interests involved.
Findings
1. Road Construction
The road connecting the proposed port site to NH66 is a four-lane access road sanctioned under the Bharatmala programme. While the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is the implementing agency, the responsibility for acquiring encumbrance-free land falls on Honnavar Port Private Limited (HPPL), as per a tripartite agreement with the Government of Karnataka.
Construction has begun despite pending identification of private property holders and absence of land titles for most residents, many of whom have lived in the area for decades. Official records note the presence of 101 structures in the proposed road alignment, of which only 18 have formal title deeds. While forest clearance for a segment of the road has been obtained, the broader alignment traverses ecologically sensitive zones, including CRZ-I and CRZ-III areas.
The road also cuts across community-used spaces, such as fish drying grounds in addition to the homes of the fisherfolk.
2. Protest on 25th February
On 25th February 2025, community members organised a peaceful protest in response to an official land survey for the road. What followed was a disproportionate response from the police, including lathi charges, detentions and the filing of criminal cases under false charges against protestors. Several first-hand accounts describe beatings, abusive language and the targeting of minors and women.
One of the most widely circulated testimonies came from a 15-year-old girl, Apeksha, who questioned the silence of elected representatives and the absence of institutional protection for the fisherfolk. Following her statement to the media, police officials arrived at her residence and demanded she retract her comments. When she refused, the members of her family, including her brother, were physically assaulted and detained. Several other protestors reported similar experiences, including threats, confiscation of phones and deletion of recorded videos.
In the aftermath, 45 individuals were booked under serious criminal charges, including rioting, criminal conspiracy and even attempted murder. Among those named were individuals who were not even present in Honnavar at the time of the protest.
In a distressing episode, nearly 40 people from the community attempted to walk into the sea in protest. Many had to be rescued by police and were later taken into custody or hospitalized. The psychological and emotional toll of these events has had lasting effects, including trauma-related conditions in some individuals.
3. Community’s Continued Resistance
The resistance against the port project is not new. Since a decade, community members have consistently opposed its construction through public protests, legal challenges and petitions. The demolition of fish drying sheds in 2016 marked a turning point and triggered a sustained mobilisation by fisherfolk, including women-led sit-ins and multiple representations to administrative offices. No substantive action was taken to address their concerns.
Community leaders and members continue to face harassment and intimidation. Many individuals named in protest-related FIRs have had to seek anticipatory bail or avoid returning to their homes for extended periods. Still, the resistance remains strong, with collective action cutting across religious, caste and class divisions within the fisherfolk.
The community's position remains clear: the proposed port and road threaten their homes, livelihoods, the integrity of the coastal environment and the commons they have stewarded for generations.
4. Livelihoods
The proposed port and its associated infrastructure pose a significant threat to the livelihoods of Honnavar’s fishing communities. These impacts are not speculative. They are being felt already and similar patterns have been documented in other parts of the country.
In Honnavar, fishing is the basis of the local economy and a shared way of life. The community includes boat owners, fish vendors, petty fishers, dry fish processors and workers involved in packing, transporting and selling fish. Each of these roles contributes to a local system that is interdependent, with both women and men participating in different stages of the fishing process. Women, in particular, play a central role in the dried fish trade, a sector that has been heavily impacted since the land used for fish drying was fenced off in 2019 to make way for the port project.
The loss of access to drying grounds and coastal spaces has meant job losses for the women and a steady decline in income for many families. Younger members of the community are being forced to seek informal work elsewhere, often without security or support. As the construction continues, the uncertainty grows.
Officials have maintained that the port will not affect local livelihoods. However, community members and fisheries experts challenge this claim. The proposed port is located within an estuarine zone, a highly productive ecosystem on which small-scale fishing depends. According to Professor R.C. Bhatta, a fisheries economist, the construction of breakwaters and large-scale infrastructure disrupts sediment movement and accelerates coastal erosion, which directly threatens nearby settlements like Tonka and Kasarkod. Similar outcomes have been observed in other coastal regions.
Beyond Honnavar, case studies from across India - such as Vizhinjam, Dhamra, Vadhavan, and Karwar - demonstrate that port-led development has frequently displaced fishing communities, reduced fish catch, restricted access to the sea and offered few meaningful economic alternatives. The Honnavar case reflects a broader pattern and policy orientation that prioritises capital-intensive infrastructure over decentralised, sustainable, community-based economies. Government support for the traditional systems of fishing, including credit, infrastructure and land recognition, remains minimal.
Law and Policy
Legal challenges have significantly shaped the recent trajectory of the project. In 2021, the Hasimeenu Vyaparastara Sangha filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, questioning the validity of the Environmental Clearance granted to the project. The petition highlighted the presence of CRZ-I areas, the lack of proper forest clearances and the impact on turtle nesting grounds. The Court, while declining to examine the location or necessity of the port itself, directed the authorities to ensure that all clearances were in place and that no harm was caused to endangered species. However, it placed the responsibility for oversight on regulatory bodies, without ordering a stay or substantive review.
A second challenge was brought before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2022 regarding the access road to the port. Petitioners argued that the road had been constructed without CRZ clearance, and through areas classified as No Development Zones. The NGT acknowledged that the road passed through forest land and that clearances had not been fully obtained. However, it allowed the road to continue on an “as is where is” basis, directing the regulatory authorities to revisit the issue during future clearance renewals.
Both cases point to a pattern: judicial and regulatory processes have deferred key decisions to technical authorities and post-facto assessments, rather than applying the precautionary and participatory principles in environmental law. The reliance on a flawed ecological assessment by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) - conducted during a non-nesting season - further undermined the legal safeguards meant to protect ecologically significant areas.
Institutionally, both the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) and the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) have failed to act with rigour. Their actions have contributed to a climate in which violations are regularised and where concerns raised by communities are sidelined.
Parallel to these institutional failures is the growing use of state machinery to suppress community resistance. Peaceful protests have been met with police deployment, arrests and intimidation. FIRs filed against protestors,often under serious and unrelated charges, have created a chilling effect on dissent. The use of state force to secure private infrastructure projects, while bypassing constitutional guarantees of consultation has become an established pattern.
Coastal commons, traditionally used by fishing communities for generations, are treated as vacant land. Local institutions such as gram panchayats are bypassed, and environmental protections under the CRZ Notification and EIA process are weakened through procedural short-cuts.
The Honnavar port is part of a larger trajectory in coastal governance, where regulatory bodies, courts and the state increasingly accommodate infrastructure interests at the expense of environmental resilience and local rights. It raises fundamental concerns about who development serves, and at what cost.
In 2025, two fresh appeals were filed before the NGT challenging the renewal of the Environmental Clearance for the port project. These appeals raised concerns about the absence of a public hearing, the project’s location along an eroding coast, and the inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the issues raised had already been addressed in previous proceedings. It held that no new concerns were presented and that a fresh public hearing was not required as the scope of the project had not changed. The challenge against the NGT’s decision filed in the Supreme Court has also come to be dismissed summarily while encouraging that the issue be decided back by the SEIAA.
Recommendations
To the State Government and District Administration: The Government of Karnataka must immediately revoke the Environmental Clearance granted to HPPL and initiate a fresh, independent and participatory environmental and social impact assessment that fully considers the concerns of the local fishing community. All ongoing construction and road work connected to the project must be halted until legal and procedural requirements are complied with. The government must also conduct a formal survey of residential and occupational land in Tonka 1 and Tonka 2, and take steps to recognise and formalise land and housing rights of residents who have lived there for decades. Further, it must unconditionally withdraw all criminal cases filed against residents and protestors in relation to peaceful demonstrations against the port and road. Lastly, it must take proactive steps to restore access to the fish drying grounds and support the revival of Honnavar’s dried fish economy through investment in infrastructure, access to credit and protection from industrial disruption.
To the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): The Ministry must review the conduct of the SEIAA and KSCZMA in relation to this project, with particular attention to the granting of clearances based on inadequate assessments and the failure to act on statutory violations. It must also consider reforms to strengthen public accountability in the environmental clearance process, especially in projects located in ecologically sensitive coastal areas.
To the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) and SEIAA: The KSCZMA and SEIAA must revisit all permissions granted to HPPL, including for the access road, with a full review of their compliance with CRZ regulations and public consultation requirements. These bodies must also ensure that all relevant documents - including CRZ maps and inspection reports - are made publicly accessible and available in Kannada to allow for meaningful public scrutiny and participation in decision-making.
To the Police Department: The police must cease the use of force and intimidation against residents and protestors in Honnavar. FIRs and charges filed against members of the community in connection with peaceful protests, including those invoking unrelated and disproportionate penal provisions, must be withdrawn. The Department must also initiate internal inquiries into the incidents of police violence and the unlawful confiscation and deletion of digital evidence. Accountability for these actions must be established through appropriate departmental proceedings.
To the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA): The Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and the DLSA must take suo motu cognizance of the human rights violations reported in this context. They must ensure independent investigation and follow-up on these complaints. Additionally, they should organize legal aid camps and rights awareness programmes in the affected villages, so that residents have access to legal recourse as they continue to assert their rights.
To Civil Society Organisations (CSOs): Civil society organisations must extend solidarity to the Honnavar fisher community and to similar movements across the Karnataka coast. It is also important that they continue to document and amplify local resistance, particularly the roles played by women, youth and small-scale fish workers, whose experiences are often left out of dominant policy narratives. CSOs can play a key role in building alliances between coastal communities across regions who are confronting similar patterns of displacement, ecological degradation and shrinking democratic space.
Check out the PDF for the detailed report.