The Court noted that the bail had only been granted due to delay in trial and long time in jail, not because the charges were weak.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, April 23rd, issued a serious warning to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, who is currently out on bail in a money laundering case related to the infamous cash-for-jobs scam. The Court told Balaji that if he does not resign from his ministerial position, his bail could be cancelled.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih was hearing applications asking the court to cancel the bail given to Balaji. These applications claimed that he was trying to influence witnesses in the case.
During a hearing on a plea seeking to recall the bail granted to Balaji last year, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and A G Masih expressed serious concerns about the possibility of interference in the judicial process.
“At the time of grant of bail, you did not have the power to influence witnesses as you were not a minister. After you are granted bail, you become a minister. You bring about a change within a day of getting bail. We will not tolerate that you make a mockery of the entire process,” the bench said.
The court gave Balaji a deadline of Monday, April 28, to inform whether he would step down as minister or continue to hold office, risking cancellation of his bail.
“You have to make a choice between post and freedom. The judgment of the high court records how as a minister, you tried to influence witnesses by entering into settlement with them based on which proceedings were quashed,” the judges added.
Balaji, a former Transport Minister in the AIADMK government from 2014-15, is facing investigations by both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the state police. He has been accused of taking bribes in exchange for jobs in the state transport department. The court pointed out that this situation highlighted a larger issue.
“It is a classic case when such politicians apply for bail and the court applies the law as laid down in PMLA offences that when trial is unable to complete soon, bail is to be granted. We are shocked this is the consequence of adopting a view consistent with Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution. If such things happen, don’t then blame the courts why they are not granting bail.”
The bench observed that the Madras High Court had already noted that Balaji used his influence as a minister to affect witnesses.
“We will record in our order recalling bail that we have committed a mistake by ignoring the judgments against you on the footing that he is no longer a minister.”
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Balaji, assured the court that they would return on Monday with a clear statement. They also highlighted that during the original bail hearing, it was not argued that Balaji should be granted bail simply because he was no longer a minister. Sibal defended Balaji, stating:
“There is no chance of my influencing witnesses. By January 2026, no witnesses are to be summoned in the predicate offence and by May next year, the term of this government will come to an end.”
However, the court reminded Sibal:
“You must understand that you have not been granted bail on merits but on the possible violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. What signal are we sending that after we grant you bail, you have now become a minister and there are witnesses who can be influenced.”
ALSO READ: Senthil Balaji Pleads SC: “Please Grant Me Bail”
Justice Oka also expressed concern that Balaji’s earlier resignation was one of the main reasons why the Court gave him bail. But once bail was granted, Balaji took oath as a minister again, which the Court found highly questionable.
“We will not tolerate this conduct. We are giving a choice. Freedom or post? There are findings recorded in the reported judgement of this court attributing role to him in the predicate offence as Minister. Can we ignore that? What signals are we sending?”
Justice Oka went further and admitted that the bench might have made a mistake by not paying attention to the findings of the earlier court judgment.
“We will record it in the order that we have made a mistake by ignoring the judgements against you, because the entire hearing proceeded on the footing that he is no longer minister. We will accept our mistake,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, underlined that Balaji had initially claimed in his bail plea that he was no longer a minister, which should prevent any influence over witnesses.
“This is absolute dishonesty on your part,” the court told Balaji’s lawyers.
The bench continued:
“Prima facie a case is made out for cancelling bail as your past conduct shows that you influenced witnesses. Now you have gone back to the position as minister where you are capable of influencing witnesses…We are not going to cancel bail on the ground that you have misused this facility but based on your track record which shows there is grave fear for witnesses.”
ALSO READ: V Senthil Balaji|| Chennai Court Extends Remand of Former Tamil Nadu Minister
The application to recall the Supreme Court’s bail order was filed by K Vidhya Kumar, a victim in the cash-for-jobs scam. He pointed out that after his arrest by the ED on June 14, 2023, Balaji was removed from his ministerial duties but continued as a minister without portfolio until February 12, 2024, when he resigned before a crucial bail hearing in the High Court.
Balaji filed an affidavit on April 3 in response, asserting his right to hold political office:
“Any exercise to modify the bail conditions would necessarily have to consider that the Respondent No. 2 (Balaji) enjoys the popular mandate and that he cannot be chastised for seeking a political office in pursuance of the popular mandate.”
The ED, supporting the victim’s petition, filed an affidavit in December 2024, warning that Balaji’s return as a minister posed a risk to witness safety and delayed the trial.
Balaji defended himself by saying that he had always attended all trial court hearings and that his return to office did not violate the bail terms or any law. He further said that the case was filed against him while he was already a sitting minister, suggesting that if he truly had the power to interfere, the case wouldn’t have moved forward at all.
However, Vidhya Kumar’s lawyer Pranav Sachdeva argued that when the Supreme Court granted bail, it did not consider any risk to the witnesses, as Balaji had never disclosed that he would become a minister again.
In the end, the bench agreed to give time till next Monday to allow Balaji’s lawyers to get instructions from him.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
