Bail riders not flouted when named as TN minister: Senthil to SC
V Senthil Balaji was granted bail by the top court on September 26, 2024 in a money laundering matter arising out of an alleged cash-for-jobs case
Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji has told the Supreme Court that his appointment as a minister was not violative of bail conditions imposed on him, further noting that continuing as a lawmaker is part of his fundamental rights to participate in public life and that he cannot be “chastised” for holding a public office when he enjoys popular mandate of the people.
Balaji, who was granted bail by the top court on September 26, 2024 in a money laundering matter arising out of an alleged cash-for-jobs case, was appointed to a cabinet position soon after, leading to an application filed by a complainant in the case seeking recall of the DMK leader’s bail order. The top court in December 2024 issued a notice wondering whether Balaji’s continuation as a minister will assure fair trial to victims as he occupies a position of influence and power, with most witnesses in the case currently in government service.
Responding to these charges, Balaji in his affidavit filed on April 3 before the court said, “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. This would not only be contrary to the popular mandate but would also be violative of Respondent No. 2’s cherished right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to participate in public life.”
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was scheduled to hear the application for recall of Balaji’s bail on Wednesday. However, the matter could not be taken up today due to paucity of time. The matter is now tentatively listed for April 15.
Balaji said that a minster remains in office at the pleasure of the governor and the grounds for seeking his removal are clearly mentioned in the Constitution. Besides, Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 provides for disqualification of an elected representative on conviction in a criminal case punishable beyond 2 years of sentence and not in the event of a person being under trial
The minister also referred to the court’s Arvind Kejriwal decision last year, where the issue on whether the court can direct an elected minister to step down has been referred to a larger bench.
He opposed the application for recall claiming that the applicant K Vidhya Kumar is not a witness in the case and has failed to allege any violation of the bail conditions. Balaji further said, “If this court issues any direction, even for a limited duration, which would impact the office of minister held by the answering respondent, the same would seriously prejudice the case of the respondent at trial and send a wrong message to the trial court.”
Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 14, 2023 and was relieved from his charge as a minister for electricity and prohibition & excise. He continued as a minister without portfolio in the state government from June 16, 2023 till February 12, 2024, when he resigned ahead of the hearing on his bail petition in the Madras high court.
Balaji is facing probe in separate offences lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the state police department over the job fraud during his tenure as transport minister in the state from 2014-15. He was accused of receiving bribes for providing jobs in the state transport department during his tenure as minister in the AIADMK government.
The ED had filed an affidavit in December last year before the top court supporting the application for bail recall, alleging that since he became a minister there was potential threat for influencing witnesses and the trial was getting delayed.
Balaji denied the allegations pointing out how he has been present on every hearing date before the trial court. He further stated that his appointment as a minister was neither contrary to the bail conditions contained in the September 2024 order and nor is it contrary to any law.
He claimed that the entire case was prosecuted against him at a time when he was a sitting minister and if he exerted so much influence, the case would not have proceeded against him. “If the alleged influence of the minister was so strong, the prosecution would not have come to be launched and continued against the Respondent No. 2,” Balaji said.
The minister said that, so far, no witness has complained of being influenced and any witness whowas unable to depose in a free state of mind can be permitted to apply under the Witness Protection Scheme of the state government. He further proposed that if the ED believes any witness is “vulnerable”, their trial may be conducted in a time bound manner.
He alleged that the applicant is seeking to settle “political scores” by raising a bogey of protest against his bail by using the machinery of the judicial system.
The applicant filed a response affidavit informing the court that while the bail order was passed in September 2024, Balaji did not disclose his intention to become a minister and hence none of the bail conditions addressed such a scenario and applied to him as a private citizen and not a minister.
He further informed the court that the Arvind Kejriwal case cannot have any relevance to the present situation as here, the investigating agency in the predicate offence is the state police department over which Balaji exerts influence.
