Examine the legal and administrative distinctions between Major and Non-Major Ports in India. What implications does this hold for Centre-State coordination in maritime governance?

India's coastline is served by a two-tier port system — 12 Centrally-owned Major Ports and about 213 Non-Major Ports under State Governments [1][2]. This constitutional and administrative duality shapes both the pace of port-led growth and the quality of Centre–State coordination in maritime governance.

Legal distinction

• Separate legislative basis: Major Ports are governed by the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021, which replaced the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and vested management in corporate-style Boards of Major Port Authorities [3]. Non-Major Ports operate under State legislation and State Maritime Board statutes.
• Distinct dispute-resolution route: the 2021 Act created an Adjudicatory Board for Major Ports, a forum unavailable to Non-Major Ports [3].
• Anomalous entities: Kamarajar Port, though a Major Port, is a company under the Companies Act and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chennai Port Authority — showing that legal form varies even within one category [1].

Administrative distinction

• Ownership and control: all 12 Major Ports are Government of India-owned; every Non-Major Port is under the administrative control of the respective State Maritime Board/State Government [2].
• Operating model: Major Ports increasingly follow the landlord model — land and waterfront stay public while berths run on PPP concessions; 89 of 277 berths are PPP-operated, and Jawaharlal Nehru Port is the first 100% landlord Major Port [4][5]. State ports pursue their own concession policies, producing uneven regulatory standards.

Implications for Centre–State coordination

• Regulatory asymmetry invites tariff and investment arbitrage between neighbouring ports of different categories.
• Hinterland connectivity — rail, road, land acquisition — needs State cooperation even for Centrally-owned ports, as under Sagarmala [6].
• Capacity gaps in smaller State maritime boards limit uniform safety and environmental compliance.

The distinction is therefore one of ownership and statute, not of function. Harmonised concession norms, capacity-building for State Maritime Boards, and a genuinely consultative national maritime planning forum can convert this federal duality from a coordination cost into cooperative federalism, aligning port-led development with SDG-9 on resilient infrastructure.