Madras HC denies interim relief to EV Velu in Tiruvannamalai sand case
Synopsis
The Madras High Court has refused to shield former Tamil Nadu minister EV Velu and his son from a DVAC probe alleging that 45,72,058 cubic feet of sand was illegally excavated from a lake — reportedly to prepare a venue for a DMK youth wing event — causing a ₹8.22 crore loss to the public exchequer. The case is the second vigilance action against Velu tied to an Arappor Iyakkam complaint since the TVK government took office.
Key Takeaways
The Madras High Court on 7 October 2026 refused an interim stay to former minister E.V.
Velu and his son E.V.
Kumaran in an alleged illegal sand excavation case.
The DVAC FIR, registered on 24 September , alleges 45,72,058 cubic feet of sand was excavated from Malappambadi Lake in Tiruvannamalai district .
The alleged excavation reportedly caused a ₹8.22 crore loss to the public exchequer, according to complainant Jayaram Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam .
Defence counsel Sidharth Luthra challenged the FIR on grounds of conjecture, absence of specific acts, and the Section 17A approval requirement.
The DVAC has been directed to file its response by 6 November ; both petitioners deny wrongdoing.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, declined to grant interim relief to former Tamil Nadu minister and current DMK Assembly whip E.V. Velu, 76, and his son E.V. Kumaran, 48, in a case involving alleged illegal sand excavation from a lake in Tiruvannamalai district. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan refused their request for an ex parte interim stay and directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to file its response by 6 November.
The Allegations
The case centres on allegations that 45,72,058 cubic feet of sand was excavated from Malappambadi Lake — reportedly spanning approximately eight acres of the waterbody — to level the venue for a DMK north zone youth wing conference held on 14 December 2025. The alleged excavation took place around November 2025.
According to the complaint, the sand was subsequently used to level land owned by a company in which Kumaran was a director. Civic watchdog Arappor Iyakkam's Jayaram Venkatesan, who lodged the original complaint, alleged the excavation caused a loss of ₹8.22 crore to the public exchequer.
FIR and Petitions
The DVAC registered an FIR on 24 September, following the complaint. Both Velu and Kumaran have filed separate petitions seeking to quash the FIR. In his petition, Velu noted the case was registered after the TVK government assumed office in May 2026, and described it as the second DVAC case initiated against him following an earlier Arappor Iyakkam complaint — the first concerning highway works, which he has already challenged separately.
Arguments by the Defence
Senior counsel Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Rahul Balaji, argued that the FIR relied on conjecture and general allegations without identifying specific acts attributable to either petitioner. Luthra also questioned whether the mandatory approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been obtained before registering the case, given Velu's status as a former minister. He maintained that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, disclosed no offence and amounted to sweeping claims of abuse of official position.
Both Velu and Kumaran have denied any wrongdoing.
What Happens Next
The DVAC is required to submit its response before the court by 6 November, when the matter is expected to be heard again. The case adds to a growing pattern of vigilance actions involving political figures in Tamil Nadu since the change of government in May 2026. Notably, this is the second formal legal challenge Velu has mounted against DVAC proceedings lodged on the basis of Arappor Iyakkam complaints.
Point of View
Prosecution of a sitting or former minister can be procedurally derailed, and courts have previously quashed cases on exactly that ground. What the case also illuminates is the rising institutional role of Arappor Iyakkam as a complaint-driven accountability mechanism in Tamil Nadu — this is the second DVAC action against Velu traced to its filings. Whether these cases represent genuine accountability or political targeting under the new TVK dispensation is a question the courts, not commentators, will ultimately answer.
NationPress
7 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the EV Velu sand excavation case about?
The case involves allegations that 45,72,058 cubic feet of sand was illegally excavated from Malappambadi Lake in Tiruvannamalai district, reportedly to level the venue for a DMK north zone youth wing conference in December 2025. Civic watchdog Arappor Iyakkam alleges the excavation caused a ₹8.22 crore loss to the public exchequer, and that the sand was used to level land linked to EV Kumaran.
Why did the Madras High Court refuse interim relief to EV Velu?
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan declined to grant an ex parte interim stay on the DVAC FIR and directed the agency to respond by 6 November. The court has not yet ruled on the merits; the next hearing will consider the DVAC's reply.
What legal arguments has EV Velu's counsel made?
Senior counsel Sidharth Luthra argued that the FIR relied on conjecture and sweeping allegations without attributing specific acts to either petitioner. He also questioned whether mandatory approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained before the case was registered against a former minister.
Who filed the complaint that led to the FIR?
Jayaram Venkatesan of civic watchdog Arappor Iyakkam filed the complaint that resulted in the DVAC registering an FIR on 24 September. This is the second DVAC case against EV Velu traced to an Arappor Iyakkam complaint; the first concerned highway works.
What happens next in the Madras HC sand excavation case?
The DVAC must file its counter-response by 6 November, when the court is expected to take up the matter again. The petitions filed by EV Velu and EV Kumaran seek to quash the FIR entirely; the court's decision on that request will follow the DVAC's reply.
