Supreme Court Denies Medical Bail to TN Minister V. Senthil Balaji, Citing Google Search on Health Condition
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India denied Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader V. Senthil Balaji bail on medical grounds. Balaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case, sought bail citing a chronic lacunar infarction. However, the court, after a brief deliberation and an unusual reference to Google for medical information, concluded that his condition did not warrant a release on medical bail.
The bench, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, was hearing a special leave petition against an October 19 order of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed Balaji’s application for bail on medical grounds. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Balaji, urged the court to grant the application, highlighting Balaji’s medical condition and his recent bypass surgery. Rohatgi argued,
“The man is sick, he has had a bypass…”
However, the bench expressed skepticism about the severity of Balaji’s medical condition. Justice Trivedi remarked,
“I checked on Google. It says that it can be cured by medication. There’s nothing as such that’s serious, otherwise, we would have seriously considered it.”
She further added,
“Today, bypass is like getting an appendix removed.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, objecting to the interpretation of the medical bail provision proposed by Rohatgi, commented,
“70% of inmates would be sick if we go by that.”
The court ultimately advised Balaji to apply for regular bail, with Justice Trivedi stating,
“You should apply for regular bail. We are not satisfied with your illness as a ground for medical bail.”
Following the court’s indication of its stance, Rohatgi withdrew the bail application. He also requested the court to clarify that the high court’s observations, labeling Balaji as a ‘flight risk’, should not impede his application for regular bail. The bench agreed to this request, with Justice Trivedi adding in the order,
“Any observation made in interim order against petitioner on merits shall not come in the way of petitioner filing regular bail application…Both parties shall be at liberty to raise all contentions.”
This ruling comes after a series of legal proceedings involving Balaji, who was arrested for his alleged role in a cash-for-job scam during his tenure as the transportation minister under the then-AIADMK regime between 2011-2016. The Supreme Court had previously set aside a Madras High Court direction staying the proceedings in the money laundering case, allowing the Enforcement Directorate to include offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the investigation.
The Madras High Court had earlier denied interim bail to Balaji but permitted his transfer to a private hospital for medical treatment. The high court also held that the Enforcement Directorate was entitled to seek custody of the minister in the money laundering case. Balaji’s subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court challenging the ED’s custody were dismissed, with the top court ruling that ‘custody’ under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes custody of other investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate.
In September, a Chennai sessions court denied bail to Balaji, noting the ‘categorical’ allegations against him and his ‘definite role’ in the commission of the alleged offence. The court observed that Balaji had failed to fulfill the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for the grant of bail. Despite his medical condition and the argument that it necessitated continuous physiotherapy, the central agency opposed his bail plea, stating that such medical intervention could be arranged in the prison hospital.
Also read-Supreme Court Postpones PMLA Hearing, Citing Upcoming Retirement Of Presiding Judge (lawchakra.in)
The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant medical bail to Balaji underscores the judiciary’s stringent approach towards bail applications in cases involving serious allegations, even in the context of health concerns. The case continues to attract attention, highlighting the complexities and challenges in balancing legal procedures with individual health conditions.
