The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has raised concerns before the Supreme Court about the State of Tamil Nadu allegedly obstructing the investigation into an illegal sand mining case. The ED contends that the state is impeding the probe by adopting a stance reminiscent of protecting the accused individuals.

According to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, the state seems to be stepping into the shoes of the accused, hindering the investigation process, and acting as a shield for those under scrutiny. 

The ASG stated before a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, "We are entitled to investigate. The state is stepping into the shoes of the accused and preventing the investigation, as if trying to shield them. We have asked for innocuous information."

Responding to this, the bench emphasized that officials from the state should cooperate with the ED in finding out if there are any offenses related to the alleged illegal sand mining. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that collectors are part of the state, and the state has been summoned to produce some records. He raised concerns about the ED's jurisdiction, stating, "The ED is concerned with money laundering. It has no powers under the PMLA to investigate a predicate offence."

Justice Trivedi questioned the state's filing in the matter, saying, "If district collectors were aggrieved, then we understand that, but why has the state filed? How is that permissible? The state has to comply with the law of Parliament under 256."

Sibal emphasized that no proceeds of crime were identified in the FIR, and the ED had no authority to investigate a predicate offence. The state filed a writ petition, according to Sibal, as a response to the ED's omnibus order.

The Supreme Court bench, while scheduling the next hearing for Tuesday, instructed that the reply filed by the state should be placed on record. 

The Enforcement Directorate had challenged the Madras High Court order, which dealt with pleas challenging the ED's summons to five district collectors in Tamil Nadu.

During previous hearings, the Supreme Court had questioned why the state approached the court when the collectors were the aggrieved party in this case. The Tamil Nadu government argued that the Mines and Minerals Act constituted a self-contained code, and the ED lacked investigative powers under this legislation. They pointed out that the offences under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act were not scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Case: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS,

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.1959-1963/2024.