Today, On 15th July, The Madras High Court asserted that the police actions during the 2018 Sterlite firing were influenced by a single industrialist. It called upon the Tamil Nadu government to launch an investigation into whether the officers involved received financial benefits for pursuing this agenda.
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Monday opined that the 2018 police firing at the Sterlite copper plant in Thoothukudi, which resulted in the deaths of 13 unarmed individuals, appeared to be a deliberate act arranged by authorities under the influence of “one industrialist.”
A Bench comprising Justices SS Sundar and N Senthil Kumar further emphasized that the Tamil Nadu government should probe whether the officers involved financially incentivized.
“All these events transpired because one specific industrialist desired it. You (police and district authorities) acted under his direction. He intended to send a message to the people, and you enabled it. Should gatherings of 100, 200, or 500 people now be feared as potential death traps? Can the court overlook this matter?”
The Court instructed the State’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to investigate the assets of all officers, including those in the Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Administrative Service (IAS), who stationed in Thoothukudi during the relevant period. These officers have been named as respondents in the current case.
The context involves the 2018 protests against the Sterlite copper plant, operated by Vedanta Limited. The Sterlite facility the largest copper smelter in India until its closure in 2018. Protestors at the time demanded the plant’s shutdown due to its environmental impact.
Activist Henri Tiphagne filed a petition challenging the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) decision to close its investigation into the incident on October 25, 2018. Tiphagne’s petition, submitted in 2021, called for the re-opening of the probe.
During today’s hearing, the Court emphasized the need to evaluate the assets of the respondent officers. It expressed suspicion that some police officials might have allowed the firing on protestors due to ulterior motives.
Consequently, the Court ordered a thorough investigation by the State’s vigilance and anti-corruption unit into the assets of the involved police and government officials, including assets held by their spouses and close relatives, covering a period from two years before to two years after the Sterlite incident.
The Court remarked,
“One should actually assess the assets of the respondent officers. We want to know where their current assets stand at. One of the protestors was shot less than seven kilometres from the collector’s office. We suspect some of the police officials have let the firing happen out of an agenda. Hence, an inquiry by vigilance and anti-corruption of the State must be initiated against the assets of the police and government officials arrayed as parties here and were working at Thootukudi at the relevant point of time. Assets not just in their name but also in the names of their wives, close relatives to be collected and produced before this Court. From two years prior to Sterlite incident and two years hence.”
The DVAC required to submit a preliminary report within two weeks.
The court’s findings suggest that the police did not act independently but rather under the influence and instructions of a particular industrialist, raising serious questions about the misuse of power and the impact of corporate influence on law enforcement decisions. This revelation has significant implications for the accountability of both the police force and the industrial entities involved, potentially leading to further legal and administrative actions.