
In a notable judgment, the Madras High Court has suggested that the police actions during the 2018 Thoothukudi firing, which resulted in the deaths of 13 anti-Sterlite protestors, were influenced by the directives of a specific industrialist. This observation was made as the court heard petitions and reviewed the circumstances surrounding the tragic incident.
Background of the Incident
In May 2018, residents of Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, protested against the Sterlite Copper plant, demanding its closure due to environmental concerns. The peaceful protests turned violent, leading to police firing that killed 13 people and injured many others. The incident sparked widespread outrage and calls for accountability.
Court’s Observations and Actions
- Influence and Accountability:
The Madras High Court criticized the police for acting under the influence of an industrialist. This assertion was part of a broader judicial review to determine the accountability of various officials involved in the incident. - Call for Prosecution:
The court indicated that police officers responsible for the firing should face prosecution for their actions. The bench, comprising Justices SS Sundar and N Senthilkumar, emphasized that grave injustice had been done and highlighted the need for a thorough investigation into the role of the police and other officials (The News Minute, The Wire). - Human Rights Violations:
The court also stressed the importance of investigating potential human rights violations. It noted that the issue extended beyond mere compensation to the victims and involved assessing the extent of rights violations committed during the firing (New Indian Express). - Further Legal Proceedings:
The court has directed the CBI to investigate the incident comprehensively, ensuring that all aspects, including the involvement of influential individuals, are thoroughly examined (The News Minute).
Implications of the Ruling
The court’s remarks and directives signify a critical step towards accountability and justice for the victims of the 2018 firing. By highlighting the influence of an industrialist, the court has underscored the need for impartiality and integrity in law enforcement actions.
This ruling also reinforces the importance of safeguarding human rights and ensuring that those responsible for violations are held accountable, regardless of their position or influence.