Madras High Court to Reserve Verdict on Long-Standing Beach Sand Mining Cases

The Madras High Court is all set to decide on a range of cases it has heard about beach sand mining in Tamil Nadu since the State introduced a blanket ban in 2013. It was done at a time when allegations had spread that most extraction of minerals such as garnet, ilmenite, rutile, zircon, sillimanite, and even radioactive monazite, took place in defiance of law from places like Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, and Kanniyakumari.

A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and M. Jothiraman have been conducting marathon hearings on these cases since December 12, 2024. The batch includes a 2015 suo motu public interest litigation petition. On Monday, the Bench announced that oral arguments would conclude on January 23, urging lawyers to submit any additional points in writing.

The court emphasized the urgency of concluding the matter to address other pending cases. Justice Subramaniam remarked, “We cannot keep hearing this matter endlessly at the cost of other cases. Oral arguments must conclude tomorrow, after which we will reserve our judgment.”

Senior advocate Arvind P. Datar, representing the State government, alongside Additional Government Pleader B. Vijay, argued for the enforcement of recovery orders against alleged illegal miners. The government has reportedly accepted findings by amicus curiae V. Suresh, whose independent assessment quantified public exchequer losses at ₹5,800 crore due to illegal activities. Recovery orders were issued last month based on these findings.

V.V. Minerals, a major player in the beach sand mining industry, is a central figure in the case. Promoted by Thoothukudi-based businessman S. Vaikundarajan, the company has denied all allegations of illegal mining. Senior advocates V. Raghavachari and Srinath Sridevan, along with Vaikundarajan himself, argued that recovery orders could become invalid if the court quashes the related show cause notices.

Amid arguments over illegal mining’s impact and employees’ loss of livelihood since 2013, the judges reiterated their focus on concluding the hearing efficiently. The court is expected to deliver a judgment that could have significant implications for the mining industry and environmental governance in the State.