INTRODUCTION
Maritime piracy poses a fearsome and continuing risk to the global economic network and human safety, predominantly due to the heavy reliance on global trade through sea.1 Globally 80 to 90% international trade happens through sea due to its economic efficiency and feasibility.2 Therefore, this phenomenon jeopardizes the stability of the global logistics network and sustainable economic growth, requiring continuous and collaborative efforts from international organizations, states and the maritime industry in total.3 Piracy can be fundamentally defined as theft or attack against ships usually for personal profit without any authorisation from any government. UNCLOS, 1982 specifically defines piracy. India ratified UNCLOS in 1995. Subsequent to this ratification, India followed the principles and legal structure of UNCLOS for addressing maritime piracy. For many years, India depended on these provisions along with India’s general laws, like The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other related legislations, which repeatedly proved insufficient for the practical prosecution of piracy cases, especially those happened beyond India’s territorial waters.4 The growing threat of piracy, particularly in Gulf of Aden and South East Asia and within Indian Ocean, emphasized the pressing requirement for a specialised legal framework to address piracy. Thus, to meet India’s international obligation, India enacted MAPA,2022.
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The international legal framework designed to tackle piracy is complicate and developing system, largely constructed around significant conventions and initiatives. Customary International Law sees piracy as an enemy of all mankind. In contemporary times, the most commanding definition is established in the UNCLOS. It encompasses principle of universal jurisdiction, permitting any states to capture pirate vessels, detain individuals involved in piracy, and seize property aboard, as long as these actions occur on high seas or in regions outside jurisdiction of any state. An important element of this treaty is enshrined in Article 100,5 which sets forth a shared duty, demanding that all states do all possible acts to suppress piracy.6 As per UNCLOS, Piracy includes “Any illegal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or passenger of a private ship or aircraft, and this act is directed on the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any state, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft, and also include any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft.”7At same time, this definition contains a number of deficiencies, and these shortcomings were discussed right after the enactment of UNCLOS.8 This difficulties are (i) The private end condition which primarily excludes politically dominated actions from the definition of piracy, therefore forgetting the intersection between piracy and modern-day maritime terrorism, in which most terrorist groups use the cover of piracy for terror financing.9 (ii) Two vessel requirements, as enumerated by UNCLOS, usually presumes that a criminal act is perpetrated by one vessel against another. In consequence, acts of “internal seizure”, such as a hijacking of ship by its own crew or passengers, are ordinarily not considered as acts of piracy.10 (iii) The definition is also geographically limited. It is particularly applicable only to the acts happening on High seas or in areas outside jurisdiction of any state. This limits application of UNCLOS to other zones including “Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)” and territorial waters.
To address this void in other zones, incidents occur in states territorial waters are defined as “armed robbery against ships”. The complete authority to criminalise such acts is given to the concerned states under their domestic laws. This distinction in their definition is important as it falls under domestic law rather than international law.11
Admitting these shortcomings, the global community implemented supplementary measures to tackle emerging threats. The Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts against “Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA)”, adopted in 1988 following Achille Lauro hijacking, extended the legal framework by including unlawful acts at sea that may be politically motivated—actions intentionally excluded by UNCLOS’s “private ends” clause.12 Also, SUA possesses a broad territorial jurisdiction, applying not only on the high seas but also within national territories. A key feature of SUA is the “extradite or prosecute” principle, which mandates that states parties either prosecute offenders located in their territory or extradite them to a jurisdictional state. The 2005 SUA Protocols further expanded its domain by criminalizing the use of vessels for transporting terrorists or materials such as nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
India has effectively incorporated these international commitments into domestic legislation. In 1995, India ratified UNCLOS, 1982, thereby embracing international principles concerning piracy and principle of universal jurisdiction. To complete its obligations, India, four decades later, enacted MAPA, 2022, which establishes a definitive statutory foundation for prosecuting acts of piracy on high seas and EEZ, thereby increasing jurisdiction beyond territorial waters. Likewise, India ratified Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against SUA in 2002, and to implement its provisions, Parliament enacted Suppression of Unlawful Acts against SUA and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002. Collectively, these enactments reflect India’s commitment for confirming to international law while concurrently enhancing its domestic legal framework to combat piracy and maritime terrorism.
INDIA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK PRIOR TO 2022
While UNCLOS allows the seizure of pirate vessels, it does not specifically impose any responsibility on states to prosecute the seized pirates, nor does it authorize states to criminalize piracy through their domestic laws. This lack of uniform legislation across states makes the prosecution of offenders difficult.
Before 2022, India’s legal framework for handling maritime piracy was characterized by consequential deficiencies, even after India played farsighted role in global anti-piracy initiatives. This deficiency was the lack of proper domestic legislation defining what ” Piracy ” is and the procedural aspects of investigating and prosecuting the pirates. Instead of a specialised law with respect to this, India largely relied on IPC, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Arms Act, 1959, none of which specifically address the actual challenge.
This legal gap turned specifically a problem in the trial of a landmark case like Alondra Rainbow case.13 In this case, the Indian Navy intercepted the hijacked Panama-registered ship off the coast of Goa and arrested 15 Indonesian pirates. However, the trial was delayed due to ambiguity in the definition of piracy with that of other laws and barren collaboration between domestic and international stakeholders, including the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), foreign governments, Ministries and Insurance companies. In consequence, the pirates were charged under general provisions of IPC, such as Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 120(B)(1) (criminal conspiracy).14 Although trial imposed 7 years imprisonment, High Court reduced the sentences, which explicitly acknowledge the vacuum in specific anti-piracy legislation.15 A similar situation occurred in the case of Usman Salad and others (2011), which involved the capture of 20 Somali pirates by Indian Navy and Coast Guard. These pirates were charged under the provisions of IPC, UAPA and the Arms Act. Here, piracy aspect was not prosecuted due to lack of legal provision.16 Here also, the trial faced serious shortcomings, especially due to absence of key foreign witnesses, especially Thailand and Myanmar nationals from the hijacked vessel, who were reluctant to appear before Indian Court, despite continuous diplomatic efforts. Furthermore, the trial lasted for almost 6 years, and Ministry of External affairs observed that IPC was not applicable to acts committed by foreign nationals beyond Indian territorial waters. Apart from that nationality of pirates were also in question, as many carried no identification.
Therefore, it can be said that pre-2022 legal position on maritime piracy prosecution was marked by a disconnect between India’s commitments under UNCLOS, that hindered efficacious prosecution, evidence collection, led to lengthy trials and excessive reliance on general domestic law which failed to address correctly the heinous nature of piracy as an international crime.
THE MARITIME ANTI-PIRACY ACT, 2022: AN OUTLINE
Attempts were made in 2012 to enact Anti-piracy act, but failed to materialise into law. Finally, Anti-Maritime Piracy Bill, 2019, has been presented, leading to the enactment of MAPA, 2022. This new legislation addressed a substantial legal void, allowing India to prosecute pirates effectively, meet its international commitments, and enhance maritime security.17
Brief Overview of the Act:
(i) Key Definitions and Offences- The Act adopts a broad and inclusive definition of piracy, making it clear that the offence extends well beyond the traditional notion of ship-to-ship attacks. Piracy is defined to include any unlawful act of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by crew or passengers of one ship against another, or against individuals or property on board.18 The definition also extends to those who voluntarily take part in the operation of a pirate vessel, provided they do so with knowledge of its criminal purpose.19 Further, the law criminalizes anyone who incites or intentionally facilitates acts of piracy, as well as any conduct that international law recognizes as piratical.20
The Act also provides a specific understanding of what constitutes a “pirate ship.” Such a vessel is not limited to those caught in the act, but includes any ship that is intended to be used, or is being used, for the commission of piracy, so long as this remains under control of individuals engaged in such unlawful activities.21
Significantly, the law clarifies the scope of maritime spaces where piracy may be prosecuted. It explicitly states that the term “high seas” encompasses not only traditional areas beyond national jurisdiction but also EEZs of India and other states, as well as all waters lying outside sovereignty of any single state.22
(ii) Punishment and Enforcement: The Act prescribes a strict and layered system of punishments for piracy, reflecting the seriousness of the offence. In its most severe form, where piracy results in death or even an attempt to cause death, law allows for the punishment to extend to death or life imprisonment. For other acts of piracy, offenders face imprisonment for life, fines, or both, along with the possibility of forfeiture of property used in or gained from the crime.23
The statute also recognizes varying degrees of involvement in piracy. Attempts to commit piracy, aiding or abetting it, or conspiring to engage in such acts attract a significant penalty of up to ten years of imprisonment, fines, or both.24 Those who go further by organizing or directing others to commit piracy face harsher punishment of up to fourteen years of imprisonment, fines, or both, underscoring the law’s aim to target leadership and organized networks behind piracy.25
To make the law enforceable at sea, the Act grants wide powers to designated officers. Members of the Indian Navy and Coast Guard, categorized as “authorized personnel,”26 are empowered to board and search suspected vessels on high seas, arrest individuals believed to be engaged in piracy, and seize pirate ships along with any property linked to the offence.27
(iii) Judicial Process and Special Provisions: For the speedy trial of offences, the Central Government establishes “Designated Courts” from existing Courts of Sessions, determining their territorial jurisdiction based on the point of disembarkation of the accused in India.28 Designated Court has jurisdiction to try offences committed by persons apprehended through authorized personnel or police, irrespective of nationality, as well as Indian citizens, resident foreign nationals, or stateless persons.29 Yet, this jurisdiction doesn’t apply to warships or government-owned ships used for non-commercial service.30 Act outlines specific procedures for detention and trial, allowing Magistrates to authorize initial detention before forwarding the accused to a Designated Court.31 The Designated Court may also take cognizance of an offence based on a complaint without the accused being committed for trial.32 A significant provision includes a presumption of guilt if arms, ammunition, explosives, or other equipment are recovered, or if there is evidence of force, threat, or intimidation against crew or passengers.33 Bail provisions are stringent, requiring that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose release, and court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences.34 Furthermore, offences under this Act are deemed extraditable offences under existing treaties or on the basis of reciprocity with other States.35 Lastly, the Act provides protection from legal proceedings for authorized personnel, the Central Government, or any State Government for actions taken in good faith in pursuance of its provisions.36
Strengths of the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022
MAPA, 2022 marks turning point in India’s approach to maritime security. Through enacting this law, India has finally created a comprehensive framework to confront piracy, an area where legal gaps had undermined enforcement for decades. The Act not only strengthens domestic law but also signals India’s commitment to international obligations, enhances its naval authority, and protects its vital economic lifelines at sea.
Another strength of the Act is its formal embrace of universal jurisdiction, a well-established principle in international law which recognizes piracy as an offence against all humanity. Under this framework, India’s courts can hear cases involving piracy on high seas or in areas beyond national jurisdiction, regardless of where offence has been committed or nationality of those involved. By extending its reach to EEZ and other high seas regions, law gives India ability to prosecute pirates apprehended thousands of miles away. This vastly expands India’s ability to act against piracy beyond its immediate coastline.
The Act also cements India’s compliance with UNCLOS. Article 100 of The UNCLOS needs states to cooperate to fullest extent possible in suppressing piracy, and India had lagged behind on this obligation since ratifying the Convention in 1995. The MAPA’s preamble openly acknowledges its purpose as giving effect to UNCLOS, and its definition of piracy closely mirrors Article 101. By passing this legislation, India has not only fulfilled its treaty duties but also reinforced its reputation as responsible member of international maritime community that upholds rules-based order.
Punitive framework of Act is also an important strength. Ordinary acts of piracy now carry the penalty of life imprisonment, while acts resulting in death or attempted murder are punishable with death or life imprisonment. These severe sanctions are designed to discourage piracy by signalling that India will respond with uncompromising measures to protect seafarers and maritime trade.
The act empowers India’s enforcement agencies with explicit statutory authority. The Indian Navy and Coast Guard are recognized as “authorized personnel” under the Act, granting them powers to intercept, board, search, and seize vessels suspected of piracy. They are also empowered to arrest individuals and confiscate property tied to the offence. This legal clarity is crucial, as it removes any doubts about the legality of their actions on high seas.
Act also advances India’s strategic standing as net security provider in Indian Ocean Region and beyond. Since 2008, Indian Navy has maintained an active presence in the Gulf of Aden, safeguarding international merchant shipping.37 More recently, its operations against Somali pirates and responses to attacks linked to West Asian conflicts have highlighted its regional importance. It reinforces these efforts by ensuring that captured pirates are not only detained but also prosecuted. The ongoing prosecution of Somali pirates seized from the hijacked MV Ruen under the new law illustrates how operational successes are now matched by legal follow-through.38 This dual approach enhances India’s maritime diplomacy and strengthens its influence in Indo-Pacific security affairs.
From an economic perspective, the Act is equally vital. India’s trade and energy security depend heavily on secure sea lanes—over 90 percent of trade by volume and >80% of oil and gas imports travel by sea.39 Piracy has historically driven up shipping costs through higher insurance premiums, additional freight charges, and, in extreme cases, ransom payments. Creating a credible legal mechanism to deter and punish piracy helps reduce these risks and contributes directly to national economic stability.
Finally, the Act makes progress in streamlining the prosecution process for piracy cases. It provides for the designation of special courts in consultation with the High Courts to handle piracy offences, a measure designed to ensure speedy and specialized trials. Recognizing the international dimension of piracy, the law also makes it an extraditable offence, allowing India to cooperate more effectively with other states by either trying offenders domestically or extraditing them under treaties and reciprocity. This flexibility enhances both efficiency and international collaboration.
LIMITATIONS OF the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022
Although MAPA, 2022 is a major advance for India’s maritime security framework, the statute is not without flaws. In fact, several weaknesses limit its scope and raise concerns about both legal clarity and practical implementation.
One of the most fundamental issues lies in the way the Act defines piracy. MAPA adopts the wording of UNCLOS almost word-for-word. While this ensures consistency with international law, it also locks the Act into a definition that many legal scholars have long described as outdated. Under this definition, piracy must involve “violence, detention, or depredation” carried out for “private ends” on “high seas” by one vessel against another. This formula excludes a host of modern threats that plague today’s shipping industry. Cyber-attacks on navigation systems, fraudulent schemes carried out at sea, or even hijackings by passengers on board a single ship fall outside the scope of this rigid definition. The requirement of “private ends” also raises difficult questions—does the Act cover politically motivated attacks, or are those excluded as terrorism? To complicate matters further, India already has a more expansive statute in the form of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against SUA Act, 2002, which criminalizes a broader range of conduct. The overlap between MAPA and the SUA Act risks confusion over which law should apply in particular cases, especially within India’s EEZ.40
Another area of weakness lies in the Act’s procedural and evidentiary framework—or rather, its absence. Piracy incidents typically take place far from the Indian coastline, and collecting usable evidence in such conditions is notoriously difficult. For prosecutions to succeed, investigators need clear procedures for preserving documents, weapons, and electronic data seized at sea. MAPA, however, offers little guidance. This gap could make it difficult to meet the evidentiary standards required in court. The problem is compounded when crew members involved in piracy incidents are from multiple countries. Once released, they often disperse across the globe, making it almost impossible to secure their testimony later. Past piracy trials in India have faltered for precisely this reason. Yet MAPA does not lay down a framework to address the challenge of witness testimony or to coordinate the roles of different agencies. The Navy, Coast Guard, police are all central to anti-piracy enforcement, but without clear rules for cooperation, there is a risk that prosecutions will collapse because of poor coordination or gaps in evidence.
Even if the legal framework is sound, practical hurdles in implementation could limit the Act’s effectiveness. The legislation envisions the creation of Designated Courts to handle piracy cases, but setting up such courts requires significant financial and human resources. India’s judiciary is already overburdened, and adding complex, transnational piracy trials—often involving foreign nationals and international evidence—could stretch the system further. Moreover, for MAPA to function effectively, coordination between Navy, Coast Guard, central and state police, and judiciary is essential. India’s track record with inter-agency cooperation in complex crimes has been uneven, and without systemic reforms, these gaps could undermine prosecutions.
In sum, MAPA represents a long-overdue step in India’s legal arsenal against piracy, but it is far from perfect. Its reliance on an outdated UNCLOS definition, the absence of detailed procedural safeguards, questionable constitutional provisions, and the formidable challenges of implementation all point to the need for further refinement. Unless these weaknesses are addressed, there is a real risk that the Act will struggle to achieve its ambitious promise of delivering justice against piracy on high seas.
CONCLUSION
The enactment of MAPA, 2022 marks a turning point in India’s maritime legal landscape. For the first time, India has a dedicated statute that directly addresses piracy, closing a long-standing legal gap that had complicated prosecutions in the past. By clearly defining piracy, granting enforcement agencies the authority to act, and prescribing strong penalties, the Act reinforces India’s role in safeguarding maritime trade and protecting seafarers. It also strengthens deterrence, ensuring that piracy is treated as a serious offence against the international community. The Act on its own cannot provide a complete solution. Its reliance on an older international definition of piracy leaves out some modern threats, while gaps in evidence-gathering and inter-agency coordination may limit its effectiveness in practice. Concerns about certain provisions, particularly those relating to constitutional safeguards, further complicate its application.
The way forward requires not just reliance on legislation but also improvements in institutional capacity, fair and efficient trial processes, and stronger coordination among the Navy, Coast Guard, police, and judiciary. At the same time, piracy is inherently a transnational crime, and India’s success will also depend on regional cooperation and collective security efforts, which remain central to addressing the root causes and shared risks of piracy.
*****
Footnotes
1. Xiao Zhou, Liang Cheng & Manchun Li, Assessing and Mapping Maritime Transportation Risk Based on Spatial Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Case Study in the South China Sea, 208 Ocean Eng’g 107403 (2020).
2. Maohan Liang et al., PiracyAnalyzer: Spatial Temporal Patterns Analysis of Global Piracy Incidents, 243 Reliab. Eng’g & Sys. Safety 109877 (2024)
3. Xiao Zhou, Liang Cheng & Manchun Li ,Supra note 1
4. Gerald A. Bunga, The Regulation of Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea in International Law, 9 J. Huk. & Peradilan 425 (2020), https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.9.3.2020.425-448.
5. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea art. 100, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.
6. Nong Hong & Adolf K.Y. Ng, The International Legal Instruments in Addressing Piracy and Maritime Terrorism: A Critical Review, 27 Res. in Transp. Econ. 51 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2009.12.007.
7. United “Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea art. 101, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.
8. 3 DAVID JOSEPH ATTARD, THE IMLI MANUAL ON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW 388-389 (Oxford University Press, 2009)
9. Nong Hong & Adolf K.Y. Ng, supra note 6
10. David Josepj Attard, supra note 8
11. DOUGLAS GUILFOYLE, SHIPPING INTERDICTION AND THE LAW OF THE SEA, 45 (Cambridge University Press, 2009)
12. David Josepj Attard, supra note” 8
13. Abishek “Murthy, Sea Piracy Law: A Comparative Study Between India and United Kingdom, 1 Int’l J. Bus., Econ. & L. 116 (2012)
14. Surendra Malviya v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 2 Mah. L.J. 234 (Bom. HC).
15. Satvik Pareek, Avadhesh Pareek, A Limited Step Forward? : Analyzing the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022 (Aug 29.2025, 3.33 PM) https://cmlnluo.law.blog/2023/08/26/a-limited-step-forward-analyzing-the-maritime-anti-piracy-act-2022/
16. Mazyar Ahmad, Prosecution of Maritime Pirates in India: A Critical Appraisal, UiT The Arctic Univ. of Norway, Norwegian Ctr. for Law of the Sea (2020).
17. Himanshu “Kumar, The Maritime Anti-Piracy 2022 (Aug. 29. 2025 3.45 PM) https://www.vkeel.com/legal-blog/the-maritime-anti-piracy-act-
18. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 2(h)(i), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
19. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 2(h)(ii), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
20. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 2(h)(iii), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
21. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 2(i), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023)” (India)
22. The “Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 2(e), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
23. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 3, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
24. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 4, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
25. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 5, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
26. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 2(1)(a), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
27. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 7, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
28. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 8, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
29. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 9, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
30. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 9 proviso, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
31. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 10(b), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023)” (India)
32. The “Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 10(b)(ii), Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
33. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 11, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
34. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 12, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
35. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 14, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023) (India)
36. The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, No. 3 of 2023, § 15, Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, § 1 (Jan. 31, 2023)” (India)
37. Niranjan “Marjani, How is the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act strengthening India’s role as a net security provider? Kalinga International Foundation ( Sep. 2. 2025 8.08 PM) https://kalingainternational.com/Niranjan_Marjani19.html
38. Niranjan Marjani, supra note 37
39. Ritik Agrawal, The Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, 2022, Jus Scriptum (Sep 1. 2025 7.09 PM)”, https://www.jusscriptumlaw.com/post/the-maritime-anti-piracy-act-2022.
40. Satvik “Pareek, Avadhesh Pareek, supra note 15