Supreme Court Issues Notice To Tamil Nadu In Plea To Recall Senthil Balaji's Bail, Seeks Details Of Cases & Witnesses Against Him

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 20) issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu in a plea seeking to recall its judgment granting bail to Minister Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case linked to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the State of Tamil Nadu to give details of the cases pending against Balaji and the number of witnesses against him, distinguishing between public servants and other victims.

"We direct the added respondent to place on record the details about the criminal cases pending against respondent no. 2 (Balaji). The state will also place on record the number of witnesses which are required to be examined in the cases. They will also state how many victims of the offences are witnesses and how many of the public servants who are witnesses", the Court ordered.

The Court set the matter for further hearing on January 15, 2025.

The ED has argued that Balaji's reappointment as a Cabinet Minister after his release has created undue pressure on witnesses.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, pointed out that even while in jail, Balaji held significant power as a minister without portfolio, underscoring his power in the state.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Balaji, countered by stating “There are a lot of people who have a lot of power in any state and here who are without portfolio.”

Justice Oka remarked, “We want to know from the state how many victims are there. If there are a large number of victims, then obviously this man occupying the position of cabinet minister, what will happen to victims?”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan submitted that most prosecution witnesses were public servants in the Tamil Nadu government, where Balaji holds three ministerial portfolios in the. He highlighted case of Arvind Kejriwal where stringent bail conditions were imposed prohibiting Kejriwal from visiting the office of the Chief Minister and Delhi Secretariat or sign official files.

Justice Oka noted the role of public servants and common people as witnesses. He observed, “We had occasion to go through the details of the trials which are pending. Common people from whom money has been taken, they are all witnesses. Civil servants are witnesses. So we will issue notice to the state and find out how many witnesses are there, who are those witnesses.”

Sankaranarayanan and SG Mehta alleged that Balaji's release on bail led to delays in the trial, highlighting that PW4, a key forensic witness didn't show up to court for his testimony once bail was granted to Balaji.

Justice Oka expressed displeasure over the proceedings on December 2 in which Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra for Balaji requested the Court not to issue notice in the plea as he will take instructions.

On December 2, while the Court had remarked that it is inclined to issue notice considering the fact that Balaji became minister immediately after being granted bail, it ultimately refrained after Luthra said that he will take instructions.

“'Don't issue notice, I will take instructions' What does it mean? Don't take this court for a ride. We were issuing notice and then we modified our order because of this statement. We are worried about this aspect. And after this counsel (Luthra) makes a statement there is a change in counsel. We can't forget what happened in court that day. From your long experience what does that statement mean “taking instructions”?”, Justice Oka said to Sibal.

Sibal responded, “My lord what do you want me to say? I know what it means. I am very sorry.”

Justice Oka added, “Mr. Sondhi (for Balaji), we will look into this matter, but we have gotten the impression that somebody has played with this court.”

Sankarnarayanan said that the bail was on the basis of change of circumstances. “Your lordships were under the impression that he is a layman.”

However, Justice Oka refuted this to be the reason to grant bail. Justice Oka clarified, “We were not under that impression. Please don't attribute something to us. The reasons for granting bail are there in black and white in our order.” The bail was granted on the ground of delay in trial. Justice further pointed out that other PMLA accused have been getting the benefit of the judgment.

“It can't be axiomatic that the moment a person is released he becomes a Minister, there is something terribly wrong. Because there maybe cases and cases where somebody is being framed. In the facts of the case we will have to consider”, Justice Oka observed.

Background