Introduction:

In a recent hearing, the Madras High Court expressed severe dissatisfaction with the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) decision to close the suo moto investigation into the police firing during the Thoothukudi Sterlite protests. The protests, which began in January 2018 against the proposed expansion of the Sterlite Copper Plant, escalated on May 22, 2018, resulting in the tragic deaths of 13 unarmed protestors and injuries to many others. The case, officially known as WP (MD) No. 10526 of 2021, was brought before the court by Henry Tiphagne, Executive Director of People’s Watch, challenging the NHRC’s closure of the investigation into the police’s excessive use of force during the protests.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Henry Tiphagne, representing the petitioners, contended that the NHRC’s decision to close the investigation was flawed and superficial. He argued that the NHRC had not adequately considered the findings of the Aruna Jagadeesan Commission, which had reported that the police action was both unprovoked and indiscriminate. Tiphagne highlighted that the NHRC’s closure of the case was based merely on the compensation paid to the victims rather than a thorough examination of the violence committed. He insisted that the NHRC should have reopened the investigation to ensure justice was served.

In contrast, Senior Advocate Somasundaram, appearing for the Deputy Superintendent of Police from Thoothukudi, argued that the petition challenging the NHRC’s closure of the case was not maintainable. He invoked Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, asserting that the NHRC could not investigate matters already considered by a State Commission or another legal body. He argued that since the Tamil Nadu Government had already appointed the Aruna Jagadeesan Commission to probe the violence, the NHRC’s involvement was precluded.

Somasundaram further contended that Tiphagne’s arguments did not substantiate a valid basis for reopening the NHRC investigation. He pointed out that the NHRC’s role was limited to ensuring that compensation was paid and that the petition did not offer any new grounds for the NHRC to review its previous orders.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice N. Senthilkumar expressed grave concerns over the NHRC’s inaction and the apparent lack of remorse from the police officers involved in the violence. The judges criticized the superficial nature of the NHRC’s closure of the investigation and expressed a strong sentiment that the officers responsible for the firing should be prosecuted for murder. Justice Sundar emphasized that the NHRC’s responsibilities extended beyond mere compensation and included ensuring that justice was adequately pursued. The court’s remarks indicated a belief that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the legal framework required a more stringent examination of the police actions during the protests.

The judges also addressed the procedural arguments presented by Somasundaram, noting that Tiphagne’s plea to challenge the NHRC’s closure of the investigation was fundamentally about questioning the closure itself rather than merely seeking a review of the Commission’s previous order. The court directed the petitioner to respond to the objections raised and adjourned the case to July 15, 2024, for further proceedings.