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.
In March 2024, the Supreme Court rejected its plea for reopening of its Sterlite copper smelting plant at Tuticorin, upholding Tamil Nadu government’s decision to close down the unit for failure to keep air and water pollution in check. However, former workers of Vedanta-owned Sterlite Copper's plant protested, demanding the plant be reopened. In December 2024, over 500 Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) members staged protests at Chidambaranagar, calling on the state government to facilitate Sterlite’s reopening to boost employment. Leaders emphasized the socio-economic damage caused by shutting various industries in the region, including Sterlite, which once contributed substantially to employment and government revenues. Protesters urged the government to consider special legislation to restart the plant.
The Tamil Nadu police denied permission for a protest seeking to reopen the Sterlite Copper’s factory in Thoothukudi in February 2025. Various trade unions planned the protest to draw the state government’s attention to the plight of unemployed workers in the district.
Parallel demands have come from the broader logistics sector. On 22 April 2025, the Paramathi Velur Taluk Lorry Owners Association (PVTLOA) in Namakkal district halted the operation of more than 500 trucks demanding reopening of the Sterlite Copper plant. Association leaders argued the plant closure adversely impacted related logistics and supply chains, notably causing a shortage of locally produced copper wire and affecting gold prices. They appealed to the Chief Minister for urgent intervention.
On 21 July 2025, thousands of people including residents from neighbouring villages, women’s groups, lorry owners associations, auto rickshaw drivers, and contract workers gathered at the Thoothukudi Collectorate. They submitted petitions urging the Tamil Nadu government to allow the plant to resume operations, citing significant loss of livelihoods after its closure in May 2018. Protesters referenced expert panel recommendations for a “Green Copper” production model and emphasized the need for environmentally sustainable reopening of the smelter. Petitioners highlighted how plant workers were forced to find alternate jobs, often struggling to support their families
Meanwhile, the plant itself has recently completed major steps towards clearing out hazardous materials and machinery as per an 80-day government-approved window ending in June 2025. Around 80 opercent of the equipment has been shifted to Silvassa. However, further action on remaining materials awaits fresh government approval.
The Supreme Court, in November 2024, dismissed Vedanta’s review petition, upholding the permanent shutdown. Still, local associations and unions continue to call for policy changes, drawing attention to the continued regional economic challenges and loss of direct/indirect jobs for an estimated 20,000 people
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Complaint against procedural violations
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?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
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
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Environmental Law, Environmental Law, Environmental Law
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
National Green Tribunal; Madras High Court; Supreme Court
Case Number
Appeal No. 87/2018; W.P. Nos. 5756, 5764, 5771, 5772, 5773, 5774, 5776, 5792, 5793, 5801 and 21547 of 2019; Civil Appeal Nos. 4763-4764 of 2013; SLP(C) No. 010159 of 2020
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Killing
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Yes
Reported Details of the Violation:
In May 22, 2018, the police opened fire at a group of protesters, killing 13 and injuring many others. Many residents in and around the plant are being subjected to harassment - For eg. Young men in the village of Meelavittan near the Sterlite plant were harassed and arrested.
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
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:
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?








