Thoothukudi firing | Dismiss plea to register homicide case in opposition to police officers, T.N. govt tells Madras Excessive Court docket
The Tamil Nadu authorities on Wednesday informed the Madras Excessive Court docket that it had accepted the suggestions of the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Fee of Inquiry (CoI) solely to the extent of initiating departmental motion in opposition to the income and police personnel concerned within the Thoothukudi firing which led to the loss of life of 13 anti-Sterlite protesters on Could 22, 2018.
The federal government urged the primary Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy to dismiss a public curiosity litigation (PIL) petition which insisted upon registering a homicide case in opposition to the officers involved. It additionally opposed the plea to boost the compensation to the households of the 13 victims from ₹25 lakh to ₹1 crore every.
The federal government additional stated the CoI had not made any suggestion for building of a memorial to the 13 victims as sought by PIL petitioner J. Vanitha, mom of 17-year previous lady J. Snowlin who was among the many 13 protesters shot lifeless by the police. The submissions had been made in a counter-affidavit filed within the courtroom and in addition served upon counsel for the petitioner A. Rajini.
Public Division Secretary Ok. Nanthakumar had filed the counter- affidavit on behalf of Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena. The counter acknowledged that although the CoI had really helpful departmental motion in opposition to 17 police personnel with out prejudice to launching felony motion, the federal government accepted the advice solely to the extent of initiating departmental motion.
“It’s submitted that neither the report of the Fee of Inquiry nor its findings are binding on the State which constitutes such Fee of Inquiry. The conclusions of a Fee of Inquiry are merely advisory in nature. In view of the above, it’s humbly prayed that this honourable courtroom could also be happy to dismiss this writ petition and thus render justice,” the counter-affidavit learn.
In as far as the departmental motion was involved, the federal government stated it had framed fees underneath the All India Providers (Self-discipline and Attraction) Guidelines in opposition to the then Thoothukudi Collector, N. Venkatesan. The costs had been framed on October 25, 2022, and the officer submitted his written assertion of defence on March 23, 2023, denying the costs levelled in opposition to him.
Subsequently, senior IAS officer Dheeraj Kumar was appointed as an inquiry officer by a Authorities Order issued on Could 15, 2023, and “his inquiry report is awaited,” Mr. Nanthakumar stated. Related disciplinary proceedings had been initiated in opposition to the then Inspector-Basic of Police (South Zone), Shailesh Kumar Yadav, and the then Deputy Inspector- Basic of Police (Tirunelveli Vary), Kapil Kumar C. Saratkar, he stated.
“The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has additionally examined all of the cops who ordered firing/fired and haven’t discovered any materials in opposition to them to prosecute. Police has opened fireplace solely on the orders of the Government Justice of the Peace. Due to this fact, the CBI has already justified the police motion to that extent and cleared them from felony and procedural viewpoint,” the counter-affidavit learn.
The federal government additionally informed the courtroom that aside from the CBI, which had filed a cost sheet in opposition to only one Inspector of Police, who had now been promoted because the Deputy Superintendent of Police, statutory our bodies such because the Nationwide Human Rights Fee and the State Human Rights Fee had been seized of the Sterlite firing difficulty however had not discovered something in opposition to the cops.
The primary Bench was additionally knowledgeable that the CBI was conducting additional investigation on the orders of a Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace 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 listing the matter for additional listening to on April 3.
