SC calls for bail review for Balaji, cites influence on scam trial
The Court that hearing an application moved by victims of the scam to set aside the bail granted by the top court on September 26
NEW DELHI:
The Supreme Court on Friday said Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji’s continuation in the state cabinet could influence a large number of victims in the ongoing cash-for-jobs trial and asked the state to submit a list of public servants and victims who are witnesses in the case.
A bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka said, “He wants to continue as minister. If there are large number of witnesses who are victims and who are public servants, then this man holding position as a cabinet minister, what will happen to them. Large number of victims he can influence.”
The court was hearing an application by victims of the alleged scam seeking orders to set aside bail granted by the top court on September 26.
The court has issued notice to the state government and posted the matter for hearing on January 15.
Balaji faces separate cases probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the state police department over the alleged job fraud during his tenure as transport minister in the state from 2014-15.
He is accused of allegedly receiving bribes for providing jobs in the state transport department as state transport minister in 2014-15 when he was with the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). In 2021, he became a minister in the present DMK government and continued as a minister till his resignation in February this year. After getting bail, Balaji was reinstated as minister on September 29.
“The state will place on record the number of witnesses to be examined, stating how many victims are witnesses and how many are public servants,” the court order said after ED filed an affidavit on Friday raising concerns over Balaji’s reappointment within 48 hours of his release on bail.
The agency said Balaji was minister of electricity, prohibition and excise, and this position may give him direct authority over witnesses who were employed in state-run transport corporations, posing a significant risk of witness intimidation.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for ED said, “Even while he was in jail, he wielded considerable influence as he continued to be a minister without portfolio.” He informed the court that a day after bail was granted by the top court, a crucial witness supporting the prosecution case had failed to turn up during trial.
The court said, “We will look into this matter. We get an impression that somebody has played with the court.”
The court recalled that on December 2, when it was about to dictate an order and seek Balaji’s response on the application to recall his bail, the lawyer representing him sought time to take instructions.
On Friday, the bench noted that a new counsel appeared for Balaji.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Balaji said that he was sorry for what happened on December 2. But the bench observed, “We can’t forget what happened in court that day. When we were going to issue notice, we were told that he needs time to take instructions. We modified our order because of this statement. After the counsel makes a statement, there is a change in counsel.”
The court told Sibal, “Why we have granted bail to him (Balaji), the reasons are there in black and white. We are careful enough to record this aspect as on basis of this order, many are getting bail.”
Sibal replied that ED was only getting “overenthusiastic” as its conduct in this case was also suspect.
The bench refused to be drawn into that debate, while adding, “We will not comment on ED as we deal with those cases day in and day out.”
The victims represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with advocate Pranav Sachdeva pointed out that at the time when bail was granted, Balaji was not a minister and the court dealt with him as a layman.
However, the minister’s lawyers argued that no victim had come forward to allege threat or influence.
Also Read: ED supports bail cancellation plea of Senthil Balaji
The court observed, “It can’t be axiomatic that a person gets bail and the moment he is released he soon becomes a minister. There is something terribly wrong. There may be cases where somebody is framed. In the facts of the case, we have to find how many witnesses are there. We have gone through the record and we find there are common people and IAS officers who are named as witnesses.”
Concerns over the security of witnesses and the delay in the trial had prompted the court to pass an order directing the matter against Balaji to be handled by a trial judge who did not have many matters with him so as to ensure expeditious trial.
