STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

'Why no CBI probe into Thoothukudi firing?' asks Madras High Court

Murali Rambha, Thoothukudi SP, claimed that investigation by CB-CID was going on in a fair and impartial manner. There is no necessity to transfer the case to the CBI, she added. 

Published: 03rd July 2018 02:53 AM  |   Last Updated: 03rd July 2018 07:33 AM   |  A+A-

A file photo of the violence during the anti-Sterlite protest in Thoothukudi

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: Why can’t the Thoothukudi firing case be transferred to the CBI, the first bench of the Madras High Court has queried.

The bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice P T Asha made the observation when the batch of PILs came up before the bench on Monday.

The PILs sought a court-monitored CBI probe into the May 22 and 23 firing, in which 13 anti-Sterlite protestors were killed.

Murali Rambha, Thoothukudi SP, in her 11-page counter-affidavit, claimed that the investigation by the CB-CID was going on in a fair and impartial manner. There is no necessity to transfer the case to the CBI, the SP said.

The Supreme Court has, time and again, emphasised that courts must self-impose limitations while considering such pleas for CBI inquiry,

“Apart from the CB-CID probe, a one-man commission by former High Court judge Justice Aruna Jagadeesan is seized of the issue. The SHRC, NHRC, and SC/ST Commission are also probing the case,” the SP pointed out.

Referring to another prayer to book revenue officials under section 302 (murder) of the IPC, the officer said that the relief is unsustainable. The police officials and revenue officials acted pursuant to the lawful orders issued by the competent authority.

For having acted in good faith for upholding public order, a police official or revenue official cannot be charged with the offence of murder, the officer added. As far as compensating the families of the deceased, the state government initially announced Rs10 lakh for the kin of the deceased, Rs 3 lakh for seriously injured and Rs1 lakh for minor injuries.


Comments(1)

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

  • Jayakrishnan K

    your headline is misleading. The court made an observation which is usually done in any petition to make the court show unbiased judging. So, instead of properly wording the headline, you are unnecessarily misleading.
    2 years ago reply
IPL_2020
flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp