The Supreme Court questioned Senthilbalaji on whether he intends to continue as a minister while facing trial as an accused in a money laundering case linked to a cash-for-jobs scam. The court’s inquiry highlights concerns over holding public office while being under investigation, raising significant legal and ethical questions about his role in the government.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court questioned Tamil Nadu Minister for Electricity, Prohibition, and Excise, V. Senthilbalaji, demanding a direct “yes or no” answer regarding his intention to remain in office while facing trial for alleged money laundering linked to a cash-for-jobs scam.
Justice A.S. Oka, leading the bench, addressed senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Ram Sankar, asking,
“We are asking you, with all this you are facing, do you want to continue as a Minister? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’… We know this will be a very difficult question for you to answer.”
Also Read: Senthil Balaji Case || Madras High Court Denies Stay on Money Laundering Proceedings
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the State, remarked that the Minister faced a “Hobson’s choice.”
Rohatgi noted,
“I was in jail for one year. Cases were piled upon me when I was in jail. After imposing stringent conditions on me [for bail], I have been appearing every alternate day before the court… I am hardly working as a Minister.”
The court was reviewing allegations from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, that Mr. Senthilbalaji was attempting to “derail” the trial. Notably, Senthilbalaji was appointed Minister shortly after being granted bail by the Supreme Court on September 26, 2024.
On December 2, the apex court had expressed strong disapproval of his return to the ministerial role, with Justice Oka stating,
“What is this? There are serious charges against him, and he straightaway becomes a Minister! This must stop. People would be justified now for their apprehension that witnesses would come under pressure.”
The court subsequently directed the State to provide details about the number and identity of witnesses in the cases involving the Minister, including how many were victims or public servants.
On Wednesday, Mr. Rohatgi assured the bench that he would communicate the court’s question to Mr. Senthilbalaji. Solicitor General Mehta noted that Senthilbalaji’s legal team had previously sought time under similar pretenses. He further pointed out that a forensic expert, who had been consistently testifying in the trial, had become unavailable following Senthilbalaji’s appointment as Minister.
Also Read: Senthilbalaji: ED Nudges Madras High Court For Trial and Not Bail
Justice Oka clarified that the Minister was granted bail not on the basis of merit but solely because he had already spent a year in incarceration as an undertrial. Mehta claimed that Senthilbalaji had applied influence even while in jail, acting in the capacity of a Minister without a portfolio.
In a recent affidavit, the ED indicated that the examination of prosecution witnesses had been hindered due to Mr. Senthilbalaji’s requests for copies of digital records and changes in legal representation.
The agency highlighted that several key witnesses had previously worked under Senthilbalaji during his tenure as Transport Minister, where he is accused of playing a “central and pivotal role” in receiving setbacks for jobs in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Chennai and Tamil Nadu State Corporation.