Sterlite Protests | Madras High Court Questions Promotion Of Indicted Police Officers; Says NHRC's Duty Doesn't End With Granting Compensation

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthillkumar was hearing a plea by Henry Tiphagne, Executive Director of People's Watch, seeking directions to NHRC to reopen the case in the matter of killing of unarmed protestors. Tiphagne had challenged the NHRC's closure of its suo moto investigation into the matter.

The court referred to the Aruna Jagadeesan Commission report, which had recommended action against 17 officials who were responsible for the police firing. The petitioner informed the court that some of these officers were promoted even after being indicted in the commission report.

The court questioned the rationale behind promoting such officers. However, noting that the it couldn't make any observations before hearing these officers, Court directed the petitioner to implead the officers named in the commission report and adjourned the case.

Background

In January 2018, when the Sterlite Copper Plant initiated steps to double the capacity of the existing copper smelting plant, the local community members, fearing further deterioration of the environment and their health that such an expansion posed, started protesting against the company in the Thoothukudi District.

On May 22 2018, on the 100^th day of the protest, when they marched towards the Thoothukudi Collectorate seeking permanent shutdown of the plant, the police opened fire killing 13 persons in total and injuring hundreds.

The Tamil Nadu Government then appointed former Madras High Court Judge Aruna Jagadeesan to probe the violence and the consequent police firing. The commission report stated that the police action was unprovoked and indiscriminate.

The NHRC had also taken up a suo motu investigation into the matter. However, considering the NHRC's actions superficial, an advocate approached the Delhi High Court which then ordered the NHRC to conduct an independent inquiry

In his plea, Tiphagne submitted that the NHRC order closing the suo moto case was ill-advised, and the case must be reopened. He added that the order closing the suo motu investigation does not mention any of the inquiry reports or the findings and merely refers to the compensations paid to the victims.

The court then criticised the manner in which the case was closed and added that the NHRC's duties did not end with merely paying compensation but they were also expected to identify the persons responsible for the violence.

“Was it a fair closure? Does your work end just by paying compensation? Look at your powers under the Act. Your responsibility does not end with paying compensation. You have to identify the persons responsible and in fact, the compensation has to be retrieved from them by the State,” the court remarked.

Case Title: Henry Tiphagne v The National Human Rights Commission and others

Case No: WP (MD) 10526 of 2021