Though Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission’s report named the officers responsible for the incident, the CBI chargesheets were only against a single official — police inspector R Thirumalai. Photo | Express
Tamil Nadu

Plea against CBI in Thoothukudi police firing case dismissed

The judges also disposed of the batch of PILs on which the 2018 order had been passed, by holding that no further orders can be issued in them.

Express News Service

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a contempt petition filed against the CBI for alleged non-compliance with the high court’s order dated August 14, 2018, which directed the agency to unearth the facts behind the police firing during the anti-Sterlite protest in Thoothukudi in 2018.

A bench of Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel refused to entertain the petition, filed by K Kathiresan of Madurai, in view of the protest petition pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Madurai, against the CBI’s chargesheet in the case.

The judges also disposed of the batch of PILs on which the 2018 order had been passed, by holding that no further orders can be issued in them. But noting that the one-man commission’s recommendation relating to compensation to the victims was only partially complied with, the judges expressed hope that the state would at least ensure that the victims are adequately compensated.

Kathiresan stated in his petition that in 2018, the high court directed the agency to ‘get to the bottom of things’ without restricting its probe to the issues highlighted by the court.

Though Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission’s report named the officers responsible for the incident, the CBI chargesheets were only against a single official — police inspector R Thirumalai — and 101 protesters, Kathiresan pointed out. His counsel also argued that the CBI gave a clean chit to the officers involved, resulting in the dropping of disciplinary proceedings against them.

However, the judges said they cannot express any opinion on the matter as it is pending consideration before the CJM court, which is the competent court. Moreover, the relevant records, witness statements, etc. required to decide the matter are not before them, but before the CJM, they added.

Who decides who stays on the electoral roll?

Tata Trusts propose Tata Sons rejig to retain holding company's private status

CEC Gyanesh Kumar will go, but system behind SIR must answer: Rahul Gandhi

SC asks Centre to examine statutory safeguards for minors using social media

Ujjain on edge after stone-pelting on cops over mosque removal drive; 15 detained, 7 booked