SC slams Senthil’s reinstatement as minister post bail
The Supreme Court expressed concern over Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji's reappointment after bail in a money-laundering case, fearing witness pressure.
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji’s reappointment to a cabinet position immediately after securing bail in a money-laundering matter arising out of an alleged cash-for-jobs case, emphasising the potential impact of the move on witnesses.
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih voiced surprise at the development, noting that Balaji’s appointment raised legitimate concerns regarding the independence and confidence of people deposing in the case.
“We grant bail, and the next day, you go and become a minister! This must stop. Anybody will be bound to think that witnesses will now be under pressure because of your position as a senior cabinet minister. What is this going on?” asked the bench as it heard a plea seeking recall of the court’s September 26 judgment that released Balaji on bail after his incarceration since June 2023.
On September 29, Balaji took the oath as minister, assuming charge of electricity, non-conventional energy and excise portfolios in chief minister MK Stalin’s cabinet.
Balaji, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi in the court, faces allegations of being the “central and pivotal figure” in an alleged job racket scam linked to his tenure as transport minister. The case revolves around alleged kickbacks received for job appointments in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Chennai and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.
The bench underscored that the “basic principle here is that justice should not only be done, but manifestly seen to be done”, as it sought a response from Balaji on the application moved by K Vidhya Kumar, one of the complainants in the case. The application, argued by advocate Pranav Sachdeva and filed through advocate Neha Rathi, demanded the recall of the September 26 order to ascertain a free and fair trial in the matter.
However, the court refrained from interfering with its earlier judgment, which expressed a firm stance on individual rights. The September 26 ruling was grounded in significant constitutional principles, particularly the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to curtail prolonged pretrial detention under the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“The law laid down in the September 26 decision is a salutary judgment that benefits others as well,” observed the court.
However, the bench limited the scope of its inquiry to whether Balaji’s ministerial appointment had created an environment of fear or pressure among witnesses. The court asked Balaji’s counsel to take instructions on this aspect, scheduling the next hearing for December 13.
“We reiterate the law laid down in the September 26 judgment. However, the apprehension is that considering the seriousness of the allegations against the second respondent, the witnesses may not be in the frame of mind to depose against him, now that he holds the position of a cabinet minister,” the court order stated.
It added: “This is the only aspect on which prima facie we are inclined to consider the application, and while making it clear that there is no reason to interfere with the judgement on merits and adjudication of the application remains confined to the aforesaid.”
The bench’s earlier decision to grant bail to Balaji had highlighted systemic issues in the enforcement of stringent bail conditions under special statutes such as PMLA. Arrested in June 2023 in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam dating back to his tenure as transport minister, Balaji was in custody for over a year without significant progress in the trial.
While acknowledging the prima facie case against him, the court held that constitutional courts must intervene when pretrial detention becomes indefinite. The judgment, authored by justice Oka, was a sharp critique of the misuse of PMLA provisions to prolong incarceration, ruling that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” in criminal jurisprudence.
The court emphasised that statutes imposing stringent bail conditions, such as PMLA, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), must ensure the expeditious conclusion of trials. It warned against a scenario where high thresholds for bail coexist with inordinate trial delays, terming it a violation of the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.
Reflecting on cases where accused individuals have spent years in jail, only to be acquitted in the end, the court lamented the unjust loss of years of life due to prolonged incarceration and clean acquittals. Its September judgment reflected growing judicial concern that the statute could be weaponised in a way that violates fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This critique had followed recent judgments that underscored the importance of personal liberty, including bail as a constitutional right, even in cases involving severe statutory restrictions.
Various benches of the apex court have recently year delivered powerful rulings highlighting the need for the prosecution to act fairly, even under laws such as PMLA and UAPA, which impose significant restrictions on bail. Many of these judgments involved the granting of bail to persons, such as Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, Aam Aadmi party lawmaker Sanjay Singh and BRS leader K Kavitha, who were arraigned as accused by the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi excise policy case.
Recommended Topics