The Madras High Court raised concerns about V Senthil Balaji’s continued position as a minister in the DMK government, even after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on money laundering charges, which resulted in him spending more than 200 days in jail.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court raised a critical question regarding the continued tenure of Senthil Balaji as a DMK minister despite his arrest, highlighting concerns about the message this situation sends to the public. The court’s inquiry reflects growing scrutiny over political accountability and the standards of conduct expected from public officials.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the case, expressed his apprehension about the implications of allowing Balaji to remain in office. He pointed out a stark contrast in the treatment of government officials at different levels when faced with legal challenges.
“It doesn’t augur well. Because, even if a person in the lowest rung of the government is behind bars for just 48 hours, he is immediately removed or suspended from his post. But a minister here continues being in office after having been in jail for more than 200 days,”
-he remarked.
This statement underscores a perceived disparity in how legal issues involving government officials are handled based on their position.
The judge further elaborated on this point by drawing a parallel with the judiciary. He posed a hypothetical scenario where a judge facing criminal charges continues to hold office without being assigned any judicial work, questioning the impact of such a situation on public perception and trust in the justice system.
“Think of it this way: if tomorrow, a judge were to face charges in a criminal case and the Chief Justice decided not to allot any judicial work to him, but the judge continued to hold on to his office, what will happen?”
Justice Venkatesh asked, highlighting the importance of maintaining integrity and public confidence in government institutions.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Accused Jolly Joseph in Koodathayi Murders Case
Responding to these concerns, Senior Counsel C Aryama Sundaram cited a past instance where a Supreme Court judge was not allocated any portfolio due to similar reasons but continued to serve as a judge. He mentioned that it was communicated that if anyone had issues, they need not appear before that judge. Sundaram also emphasized that Balaji’s ministerial position should not interfere with his right to seek bail as a human being.
“Can I say something here? A judge in the Supreme Court was once not allocated any portfolio for similar reasons but he continued being a judge, and sitting in the court. It was told to everyone that if someone had any problem, they needn’t appear before that judge. I will also add, however, that his (Senthil Balaji’s) ministerial position should not come in the way of his seeking bail as a human being,”
-he stated.
This dialogue in the Madras High Court reflects a broader debate on the ethical and legal standards expected of public officials, especially those holding high office. It raises critical questions about the balance between upholding the legal rights of individuals and ensuring that public office bearers are held to higher standards of accountability. The case continues to garner attention, as it touches upon fundamental issues of governance, justice, and public trust.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
