Supreme Court Criticizes Senthil Balaji's Counsel For Taking “Technical Defence” Of Lack Of Formal Notice In Bail Recall Plea

The Supreme Court on Monday criticized Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's counsel for taking a “technical defence” that a formal notice has not been issued to Balaji in the plea seeking recall of the court's order granting him bail in a money laundering case related to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.

A special bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, which passed the bail order, expressed its displeasure over this conduct and noted that the court had been “taken for a ride.”

In its order, the Court recorded that in each of the previous hearings, Balaji was represented by a Senior Advocate, even though notice was not issued. “We are shocked to know that today counsel representing the second respondent (Senthil Balaji) raises a contention that formal notice has not been issued. Such contention should never have been raised. By this time the second respondent could have always kept his reply/counter ready.”

Rohatgi further submitted that the Court has only issued notice to State of Tamil Nadu and no formal notice has been issued to his client.

Irked by this contention, Justice Oka questioned why Rohatgi appeared for Balaji when no notice has been issued. “Then why have you appeared? Mr. Rohatgi, we are warning you. If you take such technical defence, we will pass an…,” Justice Oka said.

Justice Oka pointed out that Balaji had been represented by Senior Advocates in all previous hearings in the recall application without raising this objection.

He further highlighted that the regular bench of Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan adjourned many matters today to ensure that this case was heard. Justice Oka remarked, “Every time we have heard. So many matters we have adjourned. If this is the stand, we will record that a very unfair stand is taken.”

Despite expressing displeasure with Balaji's counsel, the bench granted him a final opportunity. “Though such an unfair stand is taken, we cannot be unfair to the second respondent. Hence, we grant time of 10 days to the second respondent to file the counter. No further time shall be granted,” the court ordered.

Justice Oka also emphasized the challenges in constituting special benches. “Please remember how difficult it is to constitute benches. We are struggling with time. And we have completely been taken for a ride. This conduct we will not tolerate. And this also brings on record the conduct of the second respondent,” he remarked.

Background

As per the September 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court granted bail to Balaji, despite finding that there was a prima facie case against him, on the ground of his long incarceration (since June 2023) and the unlikelihood of the trial commencing soon. The Court also held that the requirement of speedy trial must be read as a condition in special statutes which impose stringent bail conditions.

On September 29, Balaji took oath as the Minister in the Cabinet led by Chief Minister MK Stalin, with charge over the portfolios of electricity, non-conventional energy development, prohibition & excise.

On December 2, the Supreme Court expressed surprise at Balaji's appointment as a Cabinet Minister soon after being granted bail. In that hearing, the Court refused to recall the judgment granting bail but limited the scope of inquiry to whether witnesses in the case might be under pressure due to Balaji's ministerial position.

In its affidavit filed on December 13, the ED highlighted that Balaji was reinstated as a Minister for Electricity, Prohibition, and Excise within 48 hours of his release. It noted that even during his eight-month incarceration, Balaji served as a minister without portfolio, resigning only a day before his bail application was heard by the High Court.

The affidavit raised concerns over Balaji's influence on witnesses, many of whom had worked under him during his tenure as Transport Minister. It detailed instances of delays in the trial since Balaji's release, including prolonged cross-examination of PW4, a key forensic expert. The affidavit alleged that Balaji's repeated adjournments, requests for cloned digital evidence, and changes in counsel had prolonged the trial.

On December 20, the Court issued notice to the state government. The court directed the state to provide details on the pending cases against Balaji, the number of witnesses involved, and to distinguish between public servants and other victims. The court was particularly concerned about the potential intimidation of victims and public servants who would testify in the trial.

Case no. – MA 2454/2024 in Crl. A. No. 4011/2024

Case Title – K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.