In a letter dated March 25, U. Sagayam informed the Special Public Prosecutor of the Special Court for Mines and Minerals in Madurai that he would not be able to comply with the summons to appear on March 26 and provide evidence in the ongoing granite scam case. The former bureaucrat cited a credible threat to his life following the withdrawal of armed security cover that had been granted to him based on a 2014 Madras High Court directive.
Sagayam was appointed Legal Commissioner and Special Officer by the court to investigate large-scale irregularities in granite mining operations across Tamil Nadu. His investigation unearthed massive corruption, revealing a loss of over ₹16,000 crore to the state exchequer. As a result of this work, he was provided security from 2014 until May 2023.
ALSO READ: “DFIR Capability Maturity Assessment Framework” by ALGORITHA
However, Sagayam revealed that his protection was removed by the State Government in 2023 without seeking prior approval from the court, which had mandated the security arrangement.
Whistleblower Flags Bias, Calls Police Decision Flawed
Sagayam strongly criticized the state police’s decision to revoke his protection, alleging that the move was biased and dangerous, especially in light of the criminal nexus within the granite mining industry. He highlighted the violent track record of several stakeholders, emphasizing that the scale and sensitivity of the scam made him a continued target.
He had earlier appealed to the Chief Secretary and Director-General of Police (DGP), seeking reinstatement of his armed guard, but no action was taken. Sagayam stated that he cannot safely depose in court without state-backed security, especially when the accused in the scam have significant influence and resources.
Political Support Grows for Security Restoration
Support for Sagayam’s demand has come from political quarters as well. AMMK leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran condemned the government’s decision to withdraw the former officer’s security and urged for its immediate restoration, stressing that it was provided under court orders.
“The State must not only protect whistleblowers but also ensure they are empowered to testify freely and fairly,” said Dhinakaran in a public statement.
The issue has reignited debate on the lack of institutional support for whistleblowers and investigating officers, especially in cases involving high financial stakes and political links. It also brings into question the state’s compliance with court mandates and its commitment to transparency and accountability in corruption cases.