The Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday told the Madras High Court that it had accepted the recommendations of the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission of Inquiry (CoI) only to the extent of initiating departmental action against the revenue and police personnel involved in the Thoothukudi firing which led to the death of 13 anti-Sterlite protesters on May 22, 2018.
The government urged the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy to dismiss a public interest litigation (PIL) petition which insisted upon registering a murder case against the officials concerned. It also opposed the plea to enhance the compensation to the families of the 13 victims from ₹25 lakh to ₹1 crore each.
The government further said the CoI had not made any recommendation for construction of a memorial to the 13 victims as sought by PIL petitioner J. Vanitha, mother of 17-year old girl J. Snowlin who was among the 13 protesters shot dead by the police. The submissions were made in a counter-affidavit filed in the court and also served upon counsel for the petitioner A. Rajini.
Public Department Secretary K. Nanthakumar had filed the counter- affidavit on behalf of Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena. The counter stated that though the CoI had recommended departmental action against 17 police personnel without prejudice to launching criminal action, the government accepted the recommendation only to the extent of initiating departmental action.
“It is submitted that neither the report of the Commission of Inquiry nor its findings are binding on the State which constitutes such Commission of Inquiry. The conclusions of a Commission of Inquiry are merely advisory in nature. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that this honourable court may be pleased to dismiss this writ petition and thus render justice,” the counter-affidavit read.
In so far as the departmental action was concerned, the government said it had framed charges under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the then Thoothukudi Collector, N. Venkatesan. The charges were framed on October 25, 2022, and the officer submitted his written statement of defence on March 23, 2023, denying the charges levelled against him.
Subsequently, senior IAS officer Dheeraj Kumar was appointed as an inquiry officer through a Government Order issued on May 15, 2023, and “his inquiry report is awaited,” Mr. Nanthakumar said. Similar disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the then Inspector-General of Police (South Zone), Shailesh Kumar Yadav, and the then Deputy Inspector- General of Police (Tirunelveli Range), Kapil Kumar C. Saratkar, he said.
“The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also examined all the police officers who ordered firing/fired and have not found any material against them to prosecute. Police has opened fire only on the orders of the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, the CBI has already justified the police action to that extent and cleared them from criminal and procedural point of view,” the counter-affidavit read.
The government also told the court that apart from the CBI, which had filed a charge sheet against just one Inspector of Police, who had now been promoted as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, statutory bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commission were seized of the Sterlite firing issue but had not found anything against the police officers.
The first Bench was also informed that the CBI was conducting further investigation on the orders of a Chief Judicial Magistrate in Madurai. After taking the counter-affidavit on file, the judges granted two weeks’ time to senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, representing the PIL petitioner, to file a rejoinder to it. They directed the Registry to list the matter for further hearing on April 3.
