“Let it be made over to the CBI (the Central Bureau of Investigation),” is how the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee reacted on Monday after glancing through a counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Director General of Police in reply to a batch of public interest litigation petitions, including the one that sought a CBI probe into the Thoothukudi police firing incident which claimed 13 lives on May 22 and 23.
However, Government Pleader T.N. Rajagopalan convinced the Chief Justice and her companion judge Justice P.T. Asha to adjourn the hearing by a week so that he would be in a position to place the video clips and other materials to show what actually transpired during the protests demanding closure of Sterlite’s copper smelting plant in Thoothukudi. The judges acceded to his request and posted the cases for hearing on July 9.
During the course of the arguments, advocate R. Sankarasubbu, representing three of the petitioners, brought it to the notice of the court that the police had filed numerous First Information Reports (FIRs) in connection with the protests against the copper plant.
Separate FIR
“They have filed a separate FIR even for a damage caused to a bicycle and one individual has been included as an accused in as many as 70 different FIRs,” he complained.
Another advocate urged the court to restrain the police from harassing the residents of Thoothukudi in the guise of investigation. But the judges refused to pass any such order.
“We can’t pass a general order stopping all investigations unless a specific case of police excess is brought to our notice,” the Chief Justice said.
She also refused to order transfer of related cases from the Madurai Bench of the High Court to the principal seat in Chennai.
Stating that lawyers in Madurai had made a general request to her, not to take away cases filed in the Bench, she said: “I told them that no more cases will be taken away from Madurai. What is here is here and what is there is there.”
She added that the protesters who indulged in violence during the Thoothukudi protests and the police and government officials who violated the law must be dealt with in accordance with law.
SP’s counter-affidavit
In the counter-affidavit, Thoothukudi Superintendent of Police Murali Rambha rejected the plea of the one of the petitioners to register a case of murder against the policemen who opened fire. “Police officials have acted pursuant to lawful orders issued by the competent authority. Moreover, for having acted in good faith in order to uphold public order, a police official or revenue official cannot be charged with the offence of murder,” he said.
Accusing the protesters of having caused damage to 331 properties worth about ₹ 15.67 crore apart from damage to the tune of ₹28.12 lakh caused to the properties in the Collectorate and other government offices on May 22, the SP stated that the rioters attempted to kill policemen and continued to indulge in violence despite repeated persuasions, warnings, lathi charge and opening of tear gas. He said the police opened fire only as a last resort.
It was also claimed that the necessity to use firearms arose only to save the lives of policemen and the family members of Sterlite employees. The SP contended that there was no necessity for a separate probe into the incident since the State government had already constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Aruna Jagadeesan, a retired judge of the High Court. Besides, the human rights commissions as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commissions were also conducting an inquiry into the incident.
