By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order For New Investigation In Thoothukudi Police Firing Case
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > News > Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order For New Investigation In Thoothukudi Police Firing Case
News

Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order For New Investigation In Thoothukudi Police Firing Case

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: March 24, 2025 9:34 pm
Amna Kabeer
10 months ago
Share
Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order For New Investigation In Thoothukudi Police Firing Case
Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order For New Investigation In Thoothukudi Police Firing Case
SHARE

On August 2, the Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order that called for a fresh investigation by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) into the assets of police and government officials accused in the 2018 Thoothukudi Police Firing during anti-Sterlite protests.

Contents
Court ObservationNext stepsBackgroundConclusion

The High Court had previously issued this directive. This was in response to a plea challenging the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) closure of investigation into the incident.

Court Observation

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the accused police officials. He argued that the NHRC’s report was favourable to them. He highlighted that the police only opened fire on the 100th day of the protest. This was after Section 144 of the CrPC was imposed. The NHRC report indicated the police were attacked by numerous protestors who overpowered them.

The 2018 protests in Tuticorin were against the Vedanta Group’s planned expansion of the Sterlite copper smelter plant. Protestors claimed the plant caused severe pollution, contaminating local water bodies. This causing health issues for residents. The police firing on May 22, 2018, resulted in 13 deaths.

Next steps

The Supreme Court bench was led by CJI DY Chandrachud and including Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. They agreed to review the case and ordered a stay on the High Court’s directive until the next hearing.

The High Court’s July 15 order had directed the DVAC to investigate the assets of the officials. This is in connection with the firing. The High Court expressed dissatisfaction on July 29 with the CBI’s failure to identify the true culprits. Thus, granting the DVAC three months for a fresh inquiry.

Background

The CBI report, submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Madurai, was rejected in December 2023, prompting the CJM to order a new investigation. The initial complaint by Mr. Arjunan named multiple individuals, but the CBI’s final report implicated only Inspector R Thirumalai.

The Madras High Court, with Justices SS Sundar and N Senthilkumar presiding, criticised the CBI for its inadequate investigation and suggested that the police acted with an agenda favouring industrialists. The court emphasised the need to prevent similar incidents in the future and expressed dismay at the targeting of unarmed protestors.

Conclusion

The High Court noted significant lapses in the CBI’s investigation, including neglecting crucial events and ignoring the findings of the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Committee report, which held Tamil Nadu government officials accountable for mismanagement and resulted in departmental action against those involved.

The Justice Jagadeesan Committee report, tabled in the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 2018, confirmed the deaths of 13 people in the firing and highlighted the responsibility of state officials.

You Might Also Like

Supreme Court Upholds Local Language Requirement For Judicial Appointments

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief To YouTuber Savukku Shankar, Urges Madras HC To Expedite Habeas Corpus Petition

Child Custody Based On Current Condition And Not Uncertain Future: Patna HC

Mother Cannot Mask Paternity Even When Addicted To Vices In Child’s Birth Record: Bombay HC

Calcutta High Court Rejects Hoichoi’s Plea Against Google Play Store Delisting: RBI to Make Final Call on Payment Aggregator Issue

TAGGED:firingInvestigationMadras high courtPolicethoothukudi firing
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Supreme Court Seeks Government Response On AYUSH Drug Approval Rules Amid Patanjali Misleading Ads Case Supreme Court Seeks Government Response On AYUSH Drug Approval Rules Amid Patanjali Misleading Ads Case
Next Article Supreme Court Questions Fresh SLP Filing After Withdrawal Without Leave, Refers Matter To Larger Bench Supreme Court Questions Fresh SLP Filing After Withdrawal Without Leave, Refers Matter To Larger Bench
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
High Court of Karnataka
CriminalHigh CourtKarnataka High CourtNews

Accused Cannot Be Forced to Seek Case Documents via RTI: Karnataka HC

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
4 months ago
Re-Testing Of Drugs in NDPS Cases Allowed Only in Rare Situations: Rajasthan HC
Criminal Family Background Not a Ground to Deny Passport: J&K High Court
Gujarat High Court Issues Notices To Times Of India and Indian Express Editors Over Misrepresentation Of Court Proceedings
Consent For Physical Relations Doesn’t Include Sharing Private Videos: Delhi HC
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Prisoner Freed Despite Missing File By Calcutta High Court

Punishment and Legal Action Under Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act

Media & Entertainment Law: Career Insights And Opportunities

What Content Is Banned and What’s Allowed Under the Indecent Representation of Women Act? (Sections 3, 4 and 5)

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?