Tamil Nadu
,
Thoothukudi
,
Thoothukudi
Published :
Jun 2018
|
Updated :
June 21, 2022
Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Reopening of Sterlite Copper Plant in Thoothukudi
Reported by
Manasi Karthik
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
200000
People affected
1999
Year started
131
Land area affected
Households affected
200000
People Affected
1999
Year started
131
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Metal Processing
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Metal Processing
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Sterlite Copper plant was established in Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi district by Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, a subsidiary of the London-based mining giant Vedanta, in 1994. 

Prior to the setting up of the plant in Thoothukudi, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation had allotted 500 acres of land to the company in 1992 to set up a copper smelting plant at Maharashtra's Ratnagiri district. However, following a year-long protest by residents of the area, the then district collector wrote to the company in July 1993, instructing them to suspend construction work.

The project was shifted to Tamil Nadu in 1994-95, after the Ministry of Environment and Forests gave environment clearance for the same in January 1995, without waiting for the Environment Impact Assessment. In 1996, the plant commenced operations after the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board issued it the licence to operate.

Since then, despite public opposition and legal challenges, the plant has been allowed to function without complying with air and water pollution norms. This has impacted the residents of Thoothukudi district in Tamil Nadu. Instances of environmental pollution caused by the plant date back to 1997, when 165 women working in a neighbouring factory fainted simultaneously due to sulphur dioxide poisoning from Sterlite Copper. Another toxic gas leak occurred in 2013 when emissions from the plant were at least double the permissible level. Also, at least 17 workers in the plant have died so far due to hazardous and negligent working conditions, while many more have been gravely injured. Several soil and water samples that have been collected from around the plant have been found to be heavily contaminated and toxic. However, the district administration and the TNPCB continued to defend the company and gave them the clean chit despite multiple protests from the public.

Protests against the plant intensified in April 2018 when a worker, who was maimed at the plant, attempted self-immolation and yet another individual in Thoothukudi died of cancer. The same year, protests intensified as people gathered to oppose Sterlite's proposed expansion, which they stated to be in violation of several land and environmental regulations. Protesters decided to march to the District Collector's office to mark their 100th day of protest. It is reported that the workers and officials of the plant were aware of the planned protest, but the district administration in Thoothukudi imposed Section 144 in the area on the eve of the protests and opened fire on the crowd when they reached the District Collector's office.

A People's Inquest has revealed that on May 22-23, 2018, at least 13 people protesting the expansion of the copper smelting plant were killed in police firing, including a 17-year-old. Many were injured. Following this, the Tamil Nadu Government ordered the closure of the plant.
On November 27, a three-member committee formed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to probe the closure of the plant termed the closure unjustified and described the move as political. The NGT ordered the reopening of the plant. On February 18, 2019, however, the Supreme Court set aside the NGT's order and refused to allow the reopening of the plant.

On August 18, 2020, the Madras High Court ordered the closure and permanent sealing of Sterlite Copper in Thoothukudi after listing various environmental violations and failures to obtain permissions from the TNPCB. In January 2021, the SC refused to recall its order rejecting an interim plea filed by Vedanta in December 2020.

The Tamil Nadu government allowed Sterlite Copper to reopen for a span of four months in 2021 to produce medical oxygen free of cost. The locals staged protest against the reopening over fear that the unit might begin copper production. Residents from hamlets around the factory submitted petitions to the Tamil Nadu government seeking the reopening of the factory in the hope of finding employment. Fatima Babu, an activist and coordinator of the Anti-Sterlite People's Movement, told LCW the company was trying to create a false image that the people wanted the reopening of the company. "We have been peaceful, but this should not be misconstrued as dampening of spirits. The opposition against the company continues as it was years ago."

In March 2022 the Supreme Court began hearing an appeal filed by Vedanta against a Madras High Court order refusing to reopen the plant. While court hearing is still pending in the matter, Vedanta has also initiated the process of selling the plant by issuing an expression of interest for that purpose in June 2022.  

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Refusal to give up land for the project

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

173

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Released from arrest

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Don't know

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sections 147, 148, 188, 324, 332, 353, 448, 450, 307, 436, 506(ii)

Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Sections 3(1), 4; Section 3

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Yes

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

AWD Tilak 7942695227

Status of Project

Project completed

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

3300

Type of investment:

Investment Expected

Year of Estimation

1992

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Madras High Court, Supreme Court of India , Tamil Nadu Police, National Green Tribunal

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, Vedanta Ltd

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

173

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Released from arrest

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Don't know

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sections 147, 148, 188, 324, 332, 353, 448, 450, 307, 436, 506(ii)

Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Sections 3(1), 4; Section 3

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Yes

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Manasi Karthik
Show more work
Latest updates
East Jaintia Hills
Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela
Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja
Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan
Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai
Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune
Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat
Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Refusal to give up land for the project

Opposition against environmental degradation

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Yes

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Project completed

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us