The Supreme Court dismissed ex-TN Minister Senthil Balaji’s plea to delete bail remarks, questioning its timing post-retirement of Justice Oka and warning against influencing witnesses.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a hearing on October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji’s plea seeking expunction of certain remarks made by a previous bench while denying cancellation of his bail in the cash-for-jobs money laundering case. The plea was heard by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, who examined not only the content of the request but also its timing and intent.
The plea arose from observations made in an earlier judgment by a bench led by now-retired Justice Abhay S. Oka, which granted Balaji bail on medical grounds in September 2024 but with strong restrictions, including directions not to access official files or influence witnesses. The Court also made remarks about the seriousness of the allegations, which Balaji later sought to have deleted, claiming they could prejudice the ongoing trial.
October 6 Hearing
Justice Surya Kant immediately questioned the timing of the application:
“Why file this application after Justice Oka’s retirement?”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the filing as:
“Not in good taste” and a potential abuse of the process of law.
ALSO READ: Telangana Local Body Polls: Supreme Court Upholds 42% BC Quota
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Balaji, argued that:
“The bail order should not be interpreted as a restriction on holding ministerial office while being prosecuted.”
He acknowledged that the remarks may reflect the “mind of the Court” but pointed out:
“They are not part of the written bail order.”
Sibal emphasized that Balaji had fully cooperated and that:
“There were no allegations of him attempting to influence witnesses.”
Court Observations
The Bench rejected the argument that observations could be casually expunged. Justice Kant said:
“These remarks reflect the Court’s thought process; they cannot be labeled right or wrong. They show what weighed on the Court’s mind.”
Justice Bagchi added:
“There were allegations of influencing witnesses.”
Justice Kant further observed:
“Till you attain complete acquittal… if you want to become Minister, file an application seeking permission.”
When Sibal indicated he was ready to withdraw the plea:
“I will withdraw if it is not a mandate”
The Court allowed the withdrawal, stating:
“We are just saying dismissed.”
However, Justice Kant firmly warned:
“Any attempt to influence witnesses could trigger a recall of bail.”
Legal Journey of the Case
- Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in June 2023, in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam allegedly occurring during his tenure as Transport Minister (2011–2015).
- The Madras High Court rejected his bail plea on February 28, 2024.
- In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted him bail on medical grounds but imposed strict conditions.
- The September 26, 2024, order by the Supreme Court directed an expedited trial, but the ED later accused Balaji of deliberately delaying the trial, claiming he prolonged the cross-examination of a key prosecution witness for two months by repeatedly seeking adjournments.
Previous Bench
Earlier, in August 2025, the Court had refused to delete any part of the original order, stating:
“We will not expunge anything, we will not touch a single word… We are not touching the judgment.”
But it added:
“We will only clarify that the observations shall have no bearing on the trial.”
This meant the remarks would remain on record but would not influence the trial court’s independent assessment of evidence.
On July 31, the apex court sharply criticized the Tamil Nadu government over the handling of the multi-accused trial, saying:
“A cricket stadium would be needed just to mark the presence of over 2,000 accused.”
It called the trial “a rudderless ship.”
In a related development during the October 6 hearing, Justice Kant floated the idea of transferring the trial to Delhi, expressing concern about political pressure in Tamil Nadu.
“This is only to distance you from allegations that are bound to arise. Please appreciate that the atmosphere in TN will remain charged, and the opposition will continue making allegations.”
When Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari opposed the move, citing local witnesses, Justice Kant replied:
“They can testify online.”
The Court then issued notice, asking for responses on the maintainability of the transfer request within two weeks.
ALSO READ: Denying Intimacy in Marriage: Divorce Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Explained
ED’s Fresh Allegations
In its affidavit, the Enforcement Directorate accused Balaji of wilfully flouting the Court’s bail conditions, particularly the bar on influencing the proceedings. SG Mehta argued:
“The resignation and the undertaking not to hold any office should remain in effect until the trial is concluded. It should not happen that he resigns now and returns to office after a month.”
Bench:
Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Case Title:
V. SENTHIL BALAJI V K. VIDHYA KUMAR AND ORS
MA 1185/2025 in MA 2454/2024 in Crl.A. No. 4011/2024
Read Live Coverage:
