Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that Sagayam's evidence was crucial for the trial of illegal mining cases and that he was facing life threats while going to courts for deposing as a witness. The court thus directed the DGP to provide police protection to Sagayam, whenever he is going to Court, with at least one gunman.

Meanwhile, State has been asked to review his application for restoring police protection expeditiously.

"His evidence is vital for the trial. At the same time, he is also facing life threats...It is made clear that whenever he is going to court for evidence, the 3rd respondent [Director General of Police] is directed to provide protection with at least one officer carrying a gun. In the meantime, the review committee is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders expeditiously," the court said.

It may be noted that in 2014, the Madras High Court had appointed Sagayam as a commission to probe into the alleged mining irregularities across the State. Since Sagayam started getting threats following this, the court had ordered protection for him. As this protection was withdrawn in December 2023, Sagayam had approached the court seeking to restore the same.

In his plea, Sagayam submitted that while serving as the District Collector of Madurai in 2012, he noted large-scale instances of excessive mining and violations of license conditions. Noting serious irregularities and substantial loss to the state exchequer, Sagayam submitted a report to the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, no action was taken on the report, and Sagayam was transferred to a different post.

Sagayam submitted that in 2014, a plea was filed in the Madras High Court calling for central and State action against illegal mining activities in Tamil Nadu. It was submitted that Sagayam had been appointed a Special Officer to inspect the mines across the State and submit a report. It was further submitted that the total loss calculated was Rs. 1,11,000 crores.

Sagayam submitted that police protection was ordered for him in 2014, perceiving death threats. However, in December 2023, this protection was withdrawn. Sagayam argued that the Madras High Court had previously recognised the threat perceptions against him and withdrawing the same was against the observations of the court.

He further submitted that since the trial in connection with the illegal mining case was ongoing, he was called to appear before the Special Court to deal with offences for Contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act. He further submitted that because of apprehension of threat, he could not appear before the trial court to give evidence. He added that without adequate security, there was a likelihood that he would be subjected to threats.

He had thus sought directions to the State Government to consider his representation and restore the police protection.

Case Title: U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341

Case No: WP (Crl) No 1296 of 2025