CHENNAI: The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised the Tamil Nadu government for reappointing V. Senthil Balaji as a cabinet minister just days after he was granted bail in a case related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Senthil Balaji, accused in the high-profile cash-for-jobs scam and facing trial, was sworn in as a minister without a portfolio on September 29. The decision has drawn sharp rebuke from a Supreme Court bench, which labelled the move as “terribly wrong” and questioned its implications on the judicial process and victims involved in the case.
Court’s Observations on Reappointment
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, on December 20, issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu government, seeking clarification on the decision to reappoint Senthil Balaji despite the ongoing trial. The bench raised concerns about the potential impact on the victims and the integrity of the judicial process. Justice Oka remarked, “It can’t be axiomatic that the moment a person is released, he becomes a minister. There is something terribly wrong.”
The bench also emphasised the need to examine the number of victims and witnesses involved in the case, stating, “We need to know from the state how many victims are involved. If the number is large, then with him holding the cabinet minister position, what will happen to those victims?” The court directed the Tamil Nadu government to provide details of the witnesses and their roles in the ongoing trial.
Concerns Over Influence and Delay in Proceedings
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), raised serious apprehensions about Senthil Balaji’s influence, pointing out that he wielded power even while in prison. Mehta argued, “Even while he was in prison, he was a minister without a portfolio. He wields significant power in the state.” The ED further alleged that Balaji had deliberately delayed trial proceedings by filing applications for digital records and seeking changes in legal counsel.
Justice Oka expressed dissatisfaction over Balaji’s actions, stating, “We grant bail, and the next day you go and become a minister! Anybody will be bound to be under the impression that now, with your position as a senior cabinet minister, witnesses will be under pressure. What is this going on?”
The bench also noted that many of the prosecution witnesses in the case were public servants, which could potentially complicate the trial process due to Balaji’s influence.
Timeline of Events and Allegations
Senthil Balaji, who was Tamil Nadu’s transport minister during the AIADMK government (2011–2015), was arrested by the ED on July 14, 2023, in connection with the PMLA case. The case stems from allegations of financial irregularities and a cash-for-jobs scam during his tenure. Balaji spent 417 days in jail before the Supreme Court granted him bail on September 26, 2023.
Following his release, Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi accepted his reappointment as a minister in the DMK-led government, reinstating him with the same portfolios he held previously. The move faced criticism from opposition parties and legal experts, who argued that allowing Balaji to resume his ministerial role undermined the judicial process.
The ED has accused Balaji of attempting to derail the trial by filing procedural applications and changing his legal counsel mid-trial. The agency has also sought the cancellation of Balaji’s bail, citing his influence and the delay in proceedings as key concerns.
Court’s Concerns About Legal Counsel and Misrepresentation
During the December 2 hearing, the court expressed concerns over statements made by Balaji’s legal counsel. Justice Oka stated, “On December 2, we were issuing notice, and then we modified it to allow you to take instructions. We are worried about this aspect. After this counsel makes a statement, there is a change in counsel. What does ‘taking instructions’ mean from your experience? We cannot forget what happened in court that day. We are left with the impression that someone has misled this court.”
The bench’s remarks highlighted a growing unease over the perceived misuse of the judicial process to benefit the accused.
Rebuttal by Senior Advocates
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, defended Balaji’s reappointment, arguing that several individuals without portfolios hold significant influence in states across the country. However, the court remained unconvinced, stressing the unique facts of this case and the potential impact on witnesses and victims.
The bench underscored that its observations were not a blanket criticism but were based on the specific circumstances surrounding Balaji’s case. Justice Oka clarified, “It can’t be assumed that just because a person is released and then becomes a minister, there is something wrong. There are situations where someone might be falsely implicated. We need to examine the specific facts of this case.”
Scheduled Hearing and Future Implications
The bench has scheduled the next hearing for January 15, 2025, and directed the Tamil Nadu government to submit details regarding the witnesses and the progress of the trial. The court’s scrutiny of Balaji’s reappointment and its broader implications signal a critical juncture in the case, with potential ramifications for governance and judicial accountability.
Comments