In a landmark ruling, Maldives’ High Court revives environmental activists’ constitutional challenge against the government’s decision to reopen gulper shark fishing, reigniting debates over marine conservation versus economic interests in the Indian Ocean paradise.

The Maldives High Court has ordered the acceptance of a constitutional petition challenging the government’s regulations allowing seasonal gulper shark fishing, marking a significant victory for environmental activists.

The court ruled last week, that the petition filed by activists Humaidha Abdul Ghafoor and Mohammed Seeneen sufficiently demonstrated potential violations of Article 22 of the Constitution, which mandates the state to protect the natural environment, biodiversity, and resources for present and future generations.

This decision overturns previous refusals by the High Court Registrar, who had twice rejected the case on technical grounds, arguing that the fishery plan did not qualify as a law or regulation subject to such challenge.

From shark sanctuary to controversial reopening

The Maldives earned global acclaim as one of the world’s 17 shark sanctuaries after implementing a comprehensive ban on shark fishing in 2010 and prohibiting the trade of shark products in 2011. This policy transformed the nation into a premier destination for shark-diving tourism, boosting its reputation for marine conservation and supporting a vital eco-tourism economy.

However, in October 2025, the government under President Mohamed Muizzu introduced regulations permitting gulper shark (Centrophorus species) fishing for up to seven months annually. The rules cap licenses at 40 vessels, require whole-shark landings at harbours, and restrict operations outside atoll waters. Proponents cited potential economic benefits for fishers and limited deep-sea targeting.

Gulper sharks are deep-water species valued for their livers, which yield squalene used in cosmetics and supplements. Environmentalists argue the fishery targets endangered, slow-reproducing species vulnerable to overexploitation.

Activists’ constitutional challenge

Humaidha Abdul Ghafoor, a prominent environmental and women’s rights advocate associated with the Save Maldives campaign, and diver Mohammed Seeneen refiled the petition after initial setbacks. They contend that the regulations contravene Article 22 of the Maldives’ constitution by failing to prevent species extinction and ecological degradation.

The petition highlights risks to marine ecosystems, food security, and the broader biodiversity that underpins Maldives’ fisheries and tourism. Activists emphasize that reopening the fishery could strip the Maldives of its shark sanctuary status, damaging its international standing on ocean protection and climate advocacy.

Widespread Opposition and Petitions

The government’s move has faced overwhelming backlash from local and international environmental groups. Petitions, including those from Blue Marine Foundation and others, urge maintaining the ban. Many Maldivians and dive operators fear long-term harm to reef ecosystems and tourist appeal.

Studies and expert analyses warn that gulper sharks play crucial roles in deep-sea food webs. Their depletion could destabilize ecosystems supporting tuna and other commercial fisheries vital to local livelihoods. Critics also point to the species’ slow growth and low reproductive rates, making recovery difficult once populations decline.

Economic and policy context

The decision occurs amid broader political shifts in the Maldives. President Muizzu’s administration has pursued policies emphasizing economic diversification and resource utilization, following parliamentary elections that gave his coalition a supermajority.

Supporters of the fishery argue regulated harvesting could provide income in specific sectors without broadly impacting coastal reefs. Regulations include licensing for vessels, processors, and exporters, aiming for some oversight. However, reports suggest limited initial uptake, with some describing the fishery as “dead on arrival” due to compliance burdens and market challenges.

Tourism remains the backbone of the Maldivian economy. Shark-related diving and snorkelling generate significant revenue. Reinstating any shark fishing risks alienating eco-conscious visitors who choose the Maldives for its pristine marine life.

Legal and constitutional implications

Article 22 explicitly requires the state to foster conservation and prevent ecological degradation alongside sustainable development. The High Court’s acceptance of the case underscores the judiciary’s role in holding the executive accountable on environmental matters.

The full hearing will now proceed against the Attorney General’s Office. A favourable ruling for the petitioners could invalidate the regulations and reinforce constitutional environmental protections. Conversely, dismissal might embolden further resource exploitation debates.

This case tests the balance between short-term economic gains and long-term sustainability in a nation highly vulnerable to climate change and sea-level rise. Environmental advocates view it as a pivotal moment for Maldives’ global image as a conservation leader.

Broader environmental challenges in the Maldives

The gulper shark issue fits into larger concerns, including land reclamation projects, coral bleaching from warming seas, and balancing development with preservation. Activists like Humaidha have previously challenged projects on environmental grounds, highlighting ongoing tensions.

International bodies, including CITES, now require non-detriment findings for any trade in listed species, adding compliance layers to the new fishery.

Public sentiment and future outlook

Polls and campaigns indicate strong public support for maintaining the shark ban among many Maldivians, particularly those tied to tourism. The Save the Sanctuary efforts continue to gather momentum online and locally.

As the constitutional case advances, it will likely draw further international attention. Outcomes could influence policy not just on sharks but on other marine resources, setting precedents for environmental litigation in the Maldives.

The High Court’s procedural victory for the activists keeps hope alive for preserving one of the Indian Ocean’s most celebrated marine protections. Stakeholders across government, civil society, tourism, and fishing communities await the substantive ruling with high stakes for the nation’s blue economy and ecological future.

Focus Keyphrase: Maldives gulper shark fishing constitutional challenge

Tags: Maldives High Court, gulper shark fishing, shark sanctuary, environmental conservation, Humaidha Abdul Ghafoor, Article 22 Constitution, marine biodiversity, eco-tourism Maldives, Save Maldives campaign, ocean protection,