The Supreme Court has suggested the establishment of an expert committee to evaluate the possibility of reopening the Vedanta Group’s Sterlite Copper smelter plant, which was shut down six years ago. The move comes amid ongoing debates and legal battles surrounding the closure of the plant, signalling a potential breakthrough in the contentious issue.
The Sterlite Copper smelter plant was closed down following widespread protests from various quarters, including Christian groups, environmentalists, leftist parties, and the Makkal Athikaram, a naxal group, which escalated into violence. The protests culminated in a tragic incident of police firing on the demonstrators, resulting in multiple casualties. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Government ordered the immediate closure and sealing of the plant, triggering a series of legal battles and public outcry.
Despite petitions and appeals filed in the High Court and Supreme Court seeking the reopening of the plant, previous rulings have upheld its closure. Additionally, the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan commission, tasked with investigating the alleged police firing during the anti-Sterlite protests, submitted its report to the government after extensive inquiries. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also been probing the case, with calls mounting for murder charges to be filed against 17 policemen involved in the incident.
The apex court’s three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, expressed that the factory must comply with the law, emphasizing the need for both authorities and the company to adhere to legal provisions.
The Sterlite Copper smelting plant faced closure following extensive protests and legal challenges, particularly centered around environmental concerns and allegations of violations. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the unit was temporarily allowed to produce oxygen, showcasing its potential utility during a critical time.
On February 21, the Supreme Court heard a petition filed by Vedanta challenging the Madras High Court’s decision against reopening the plant. The bench remarked that while the company must comply with existing laws, the state government must specify the grounds for closing the plant and substantiate any alleged violations.
The apex court suggested a path for Sterlite’s revival, proposing that Vedanta could refurbish the Thoothukudi copper smelting plant. However, this would be contingent on the company’s assurance to follow environmental safeguards recommended by an expert panel, including the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). The court mandated an upfront deposit by Vedanta in an escrow account to demonstrate its commitment to adhering to environmental standards.
The Supreme Court emphasised that a company cannot selectively comply with provisions pointed out by authorities and must adhere to applicable laws, such as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. The court underscored the need for transparency in specifying grounds for closing an industry, rejecting the notion of violations on unspecified grounds.
The bench scheduled the matter for further hearing, providing an opportunity for both the Vedanta Group and the Tamil Nadu government to present their respective cases. The court’s direction towards refurbishing the plant signals a potential shift in the Sterlite saga, opening avenues for dialogue and resolution while prioritising environmental safeguards.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned the TN government, stating, “You need to tell us the reasons for the closure of the plant.” The court underscored the importance of protecting the health and welfare of the local community in Thoothukudi, acknowledging the community’s voicelessness and suggesting the viability of an expert panel to assess the plant’s reopening with strict conditions.
Vedanta’s counsel, Shyam Divan, proposed a collaborative approach by recommending the formation of an expert committee. This committee, as per Divan’s suggestion, would include members from the environment ministry, NEERI, the Central Pollution Control Board, IIT, Vedanta, along with three independent members and officers from TN Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). Divan further proposed that a retired Supreme Court judge could chair the panel, which would be tasked with recommending conditions for reopening the Sterlite Copper unit, encompassing additional environmental safeguards.
Senior advocate CS Vaidhyanathan, representing the TN government, countered that the plant had been closed due to extensive pollution in the area. He emphasized the need to balance national interests without compromising the lives of the local population. Vaidhyanathan clarified that Sterlite was not entirely closed but denied consent to operate over environmental concerns.
The Supreme Court had earlier suggested exploring the formation of an expert committee during its February 14 hearing. The court had directed the parties to consider the committee approach to inspect Vedanta’s Sterlite Copper plant and potentially reopen it with strict conditions. In October of the previous year, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had allocated dedicated dates for hearing Vedanta’s plea related to the Sterlite plant’s closure. The court’s April 10 order permitted the Vedanta Group to carry out upkeep activities under the supervision of a local-level monitoring committee.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the Supreme Court’s inclination towards an expert committee signals a pragmatic approach, balancing economic considerations with environmental responsibilities. The proposal seeks to navigate the complex terrain of reopening the Sterlite Copper unit by involving a diverse set of experts. The court’s continued engagement with both parties underscores its commitment to a comprehensive and informed decision-making process, ensuring the welfare of the local community and environmental sustainability remain at the forefront.
The Sterlite saga’s latest developments suggest a potential turning point in the prolonged legal battle. The court’s emphasis on expert recommendations and environmental safeguards reflects a nuanced understanding of the challenges at hand. The upcoming hearings will likely delve deeper into the specifics of the proposed expert committee, offering a path forward that accommodates both industrial interests and ecological imperatives.
Comments