Lawyers are not expected to be sentimental. Our craft rests on the rule of law, not the sway of public emotion. Though the legal process has run its course, the Sterlite Copper case continues to test the law’s intersection with ethical, environmental, and economic considerations.
Seven years ago, on May 22, 2018, thirteen citizens tragically lost their lives in Thoothukudi when a protest against the Sterlite Copper smelting plant escalated into violence. The events of that day are seared into public memory, not just for the lives lost, but also for the divisive aftermath. Were the protesters misled about the plant’s environmental record? Would the Collectorate have been attacked if law enforcement had exercised restraint?
These questions now belong to the domain of history. What remains is the need for constructive action — to prevent such tragedies in the future and objectively assess whether economic opportunities can be revived, responsibly and sustainably.
Rethinking the Sterlite closure
Sterlite Copper, a unit of Vedanta Ltd., commenced operations in 1997 after securing all necessary clearances, including those from the Tamil Nadu government and environmental regulators. Located in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex in Thoothukudi, the facility included not just the smelter but also associated ancillary units — a captive power plant, a sulphuric acid plant, a phosphoric acid plant, a refinery, and a copper rod unit.
Over its two-decade lifespan, Sterlite Copper played a significant role in reshaping India’s copper economy. At peak production, the smelter contributed nearly 36 per cent of India’s refined copper output and helped transform the country from a net importer to a net exporter. Its economic footprint was substantial: contributing nearly 1.5 per cent to Tamil Nadu’s GDP, generating direct employment for over 4,000 individuals, and enabling nearly 100,000 indirect jobs through logistics, downstream industries, and support services.
Farmers benefited from access to phosphoric acid, while truckers and trucking companies, especially in Namakkal, found reliable business opportunities. Aligned with the Vedanta Group’s CSR philosophy, Sterlite Copper also made substantial contributions to primary and secondary education, access to potable water, women’s skill development, support for local fisherfolk, and the formation of self-help groups.
The plant’s classification as a ‘red category’ industry was consistent with its peers — cement, chemicals, fertilizer, and thermal power units also operate under this designation in the same industrial belt. Red category industries are subject to stringent environmental clearances and compliance monitoring by regulatory authorities. However, from 2017 onwards, Sterlite became a lightning rod for controversy, with both domestic and international activist groups alleging chronic pollution and public health damage.
Disputed narratives
Sterlite Copper consistently denied these allegations. In 2019, it launched a public campaign titled ‘Know the Truth’, presenting data and independent studies to counter claims of environmental damage. According to reports cited by the company: 70 per cent of its water consumption came from a desalination plant; it operated as a zero-liquid-discharge facility (National Environmental Engineering Research Institute Report, 2011); sulphur dioxide emissions were well within prescribed limits and contributed just 1 per cent to total local SO₂ emissions; a biodiversity study by the Forest Research Institute found negligible marine impact within a 10 km radius.
Yet, these assertions did little to sway public sentiment, which had by then crystallised around narratives of environmental degradation and public health risks. The result was a 100-day protest in 2018 that culminated in the tragic events of May 22.
Seven years later
Since its closure in 2018, the Sterlite plant has been the subject of intense and protracted litigation. The case has oscillated through various forums — from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and from the Madras High Court to the Supreme Court.
A few key milestones:
May 2018: The Tamil Nadu government ordered the permanent closure of the plant.
December 2018: The NGT overruled the shutdown, calling it “non-sustainable and unjustified.”
February 2019: The Supreme Court struck down the NGT’s order on maintainability grounds.
August 2020: The Madras High Court reaffirmed the closure.
February 2024: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling.
October 2024: A review petition and application for open court hearing were both dismissed.
With all legal remedies now seemingly exhausted, the matter is no longer sub judice. This offers an opportunity for stakeholders — industry, community, government, and civil society — to reflect and, possibly, to reconcile.
After the smoke clears
For several years, regulatory and governmental authorities have engaged with concerns raised by those opposing the operations of Sterlite Copper. It may now be appropriate to give due consideration to emerging views from stakeholders advocating its revival.
Credible media reports indicate that contractors, logistics operators, and other local beneficiaries have recently convened public meetings and rallies in support of reopening the smelter. The evolving economic conditions appear to have prompted citizens to submit formal petitions to relevant authorities and elected representatives, citing the potential for renewed employment, restoration of livelihoods, and the revival of dependent ancillary industries.
Given the deep economic, legal, and social imprint of this case, here are potential avenues for responsible reconsideration:
Community engagement and evidence-based review: Local community leaders in Thoothukudi have a duty to ensure that public opinion aligns with verifiable facts. A simple comparison of pollution data before and after the plant’s closure could offer an empirical basis to either validate or challenge the allegations of contamination. If environmental quality has not measurably improved, the narrative that Sterlite was a “chronic polluter” deserves scrutiny.
Rebuilding confidence: The State Government’s responsibility: Tamil Nadu has emerged as a hub for manufacturing and high-tech investments under a proactive State leadership. However, since the Sterlite closure, no new similar project of comparable scale has been established. It may be time for the Chief Minister and his team to commission an independent, multidisciplinary assessment — scientific, legal, economic — of the events leading to the plant’s closure.
The way forward
For Sterlite Copper, perseverance must now be paired with humility and adaptability. The company should proactively seek dialogue with both the State government and local communities. Indian law permits the original complainant — in this case, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) — to withdraw its objections if it is satisfied that the underlying concerns have been adequately addressed through remediation. This could open the door for the government to issue an Executive Order, conditional on Sterlite meeting rigorous compliance benchmarks — including a phased restart, independent environmental audits, and a probationary period of operations.
In advising corporates on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategy, I do not advocate special treatment or regulatory leniency for industry, but rather a framework grounded in rational, evidence-based oversight. Allegations of pollution must always be addressed — but they must also be substantiated. Repetition alone cannot turn conjecture into truth.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court cautioned against a growing trend of vested interests or rival bidders using NGOs to obstruct development projects, even as it affirmed the vital role of genuine environmental advocacy. “It has become a practice with rivals of project proponents to set up NGOs and challenge projects on the ground that it would cause irreparable harm to the environment,” the Bench observed.
Harmonising the inherent tensions between development objectives and environmental protection requires a willingness to revisit past decisions with both scientific integrity and legal clarity — not emotional overhang.
Ultimately, the reopening of Sterlite Copper is not a given — but neither should it be dismissed as unthinkable. The path forward must be shaped by dialogue, empirical evidence, regulatory compliance, and shared accountability. That is how justice — both environmental and economic — can be best served.
The writer is a Senior Partner at the law firm of Desai & Diwanji and a former Leitner Fellow at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. The views are personal