New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Tamil Nadu government to provide comprehensive details of all First Information Reports (FIRs) linked to illegal sand mining and mineral theft in the state. The order came after hearing arguments from the petitioner and state representatives, underscoring alleged large-scale illicit extraction valued at thousands of crores.
Background of the Tamil Nadu Illegal Sand Mining Row
On February 11, 2026, a two-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. The petition was presented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the petitioner, with the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and State counsel Amit Anand Tiwari appearing for the Tamil Nadu government.
The Court asked the state to compile and produce details of all FIRs concerning illegal sand mining and mineral theft, including even those that were later closed due to allegedly unfounded complaints.
Tamil Nadu Illegal Sand Mining Row: What The Petition Claims
According to the petition:
- The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had uncovered evidence suggesting illegal sand mining worth more than ₹4,000 crore in Tamil Nadu.
- However, its investigation was halted because there was no registered predicate offence — a necessary condition under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before ED can probe money laundering linked to criminal activities.
- The petitioner urged the Supreme Court to direct a CBI investigation into the matter.
The Bench emphasised that without a predicate offence, the ED could not continue to investigate under PMLA provisions. This is a crucial point in the legal debate over environmental crimes and money-laundering statutes.
What The Tamil Nadu Government Argued
The state’s counsel presented several points in defence:
- Issue of Locus Standi: The petitioner’s standing to file the petition was challenged.
- Changed Plea: The prayer initially sought cancellation of environmental clearances, but now requested a CBI inquiry — a shift the government highlighted.
- ED Materials and Predicate Offence: The State claimed that material collected by the ED could not be acted upon because illegal sand mining is not classified as a scheduled offence under the PMLA, thus raising questions on the agency’s jurisdiction.
Tamil Nadu Illegal Sand Mining Row: Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court raised significant remarks during the hearing:
- Need for Predicate Offence: The Bench agreed that without a predicate offence, the ED’s authority to investigate was constrained, leaving the agency “helpless”.
- Scale of Allegations: Citing the estimates from ED and submissions, the Court noted that the allegations involve sand mineral theft worth an estimated ₹4,730 crore — indicating a “well-calculated and well-planned theft”.
- Role of State Enforcement: The Bench suggested that the State should be proactive if its resources were impacted by alleged illegal mining.
- Predicate Offence vs. Mines Act: The judges also questioned filing cases under the Mines and Minerals Act while avoiding theft charges that could serve as predicate offences for PMLA.
These observations reflect the Court’s focus on clarity over which legal provisions apply to environmental and economic offences, especially when money-laundering powers are invoked.
Broader Context: Enforcement Challenges in Mining Cases
This case is part of a broader pattern where courts and agencies debate the scope of the PMLA in environmental and economic crime contexts:
- Previously, the Madras High Court held that the ED overstepped its jurisdiction by investigating sand mining under PMLA because mining is not a scheduled offence.
- The Supreme Court in other judgments has stressed that proceeds of crime must be clearly linked to a scheduled offence for PMLA powers to kick in.
These precedents show a continuing judicial effort to balance enforcement powers with statutory limits.
