The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, February 11, directed the Tamil Nadu government to submit details regarding cases registered in connection with the alleged illegal sand mining worth Rs 4730 crore.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by one M Lakshmanan calling for a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the allegations.
The Court has asked the State to provide details of all FIRs registered in relation to illegal sand mining including FIRs which were closed based on “false allegations.”
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a High Court case on the issue had been closed after the State assured it would stop illegal mining. But the subsequent Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe had found illegal mining worth Rs 4,730 crore.
Bhushan submitted that the ED probe was shut down, citing the lack of a predicate offence. A predicate offence refers to a crime committed in service of a larger, more complex crime, most often invoked in relation to Money laundering offences.
According to a Live Law report, the State argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the High Court petition was only for revoking environmental clearance, not seeking a CBI investigation. The State also reiterated that the ED probe could not proceed in the absence of a predicate offence.
The Chief Justice remarked, “ED is helpless because there is no predicate offence. CBI you will not allow to investigate. Your own police will not—because how can the cat look after the milk? How will the public at large come to know the truth of what has happened?”
The Court suggested that a retired judge could be appointed to look into the matter.
"What you were doing is you were omitting theft...you were just registering the criminal case under the Mines and Minerals (Prevention and Regulation) Act, and in that way, you are taking the stance that there is no predicate offence because the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not include the Mines and Minerals Act as a scheduled offence," said the court.
Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari appearing for the State meanwhile submitted that mines in all 38 states were monitored using CCTV cameras and that the ED was making its assumptions based on satellite images of a river at two points of time. He further alleged that the petitioner had a political agenda behind the case.