NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday placed senior DMK neta V Senthil Balaji , who was reinstated by Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin as minister just two days after being granted bail by the top court in a cash-for-job scam case, between a rock and a hard place by giving him two options — either go to prison again as a minister or resign and enjoy freedom.
A stern SC said it will recall its bail order if he continues to be minister as he may influence witnesses .
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and A G Masih said the court had granted bail to Balaji after he claimed to have resigned from govt to dispel concerns about influencing witnesses.
You are making mockery of process, SC tells Balaji
The bench noted that just two days after Senthil Balaji’s release, he was reinducted as a minister, which is “dishonesty” and the court cannot “tolerate such conduct”.
Noting that there was a “drastic” finding against Balaji in its earlier order — which stated that he had attempted to obstruct the corruption probe while serving as a minister — the bench observed that Balaji is now back in the same position and could again influence witnesses. The court added that it would recall its order and admit to having made a mistake in granting him bail if he continues to hold office.
“You have to make a choice between the post (minister) and freedom. What choice do you want to make? Make up your mind,” the bench asked senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi who were defending the minister.
Sibal submitted that since there was no likelihood of witnesses deposing in the near future and the trial was expected to begin by Dec, there was no need for the DMK politician to step down now. He even suggested to the court that the trial could be shifted to another state.
However, the bench remained firm, stating that the minister must make a choice. It emphasised that the grant of bail was not a licence to influence witnesses, adding, “You are making a mockery of the process.” Virtually pushed to the wall, Sibal sought time till Monday to make a choice given by the bench and assured to brief the court at 2 pm on that day.
Significantly, the bench — known for zealously upholding the principle that ‘bail is the norm, jail the exception’ — emphasised that the issue could have wider implications. It warned that misuse of bail could compel the court to abandon its liberal approach in protecting the rights of the accused. SC’s verdict in Balaji’s case had become a benchmark for granting bail in money laundering cases, with many accused receiving relief based on the ruling that bail should be granted if there is an inordinate delay in trial and the accused has been in custody for over a year.
Justice Oka, who authored that verdict, noted that the apex court subsequently issued several strong orders granting bail in similar cases — often to the dismay of ED. . He cautioned that any misuse of such bail orders could lead to a shift toward a more conservative approach in bail jurisprudence.
“What troubles us is (that) for the first time in a PMLA case we applied a law and granted bail. This order is being followed consistently. We were told that he (Balaji) is no longer a minister. Therefore, we ignored the allegation (of influencing) on the ground that he is no longer minister. Now you bring about a change within a few days of the order of granting bail and he is again the minister. This is not the way to deal with the court. After that, don’t blame us that this court is not liberal in granting bail. You know how difficult it is to get bail in PMLA,” the bench said.
The court also said that bail to Balaji was not granted on merit of the case, but to protect his rights under Article 21 of Constitution.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for ED, and advocate Pranav Sachdeva, representing the petitioner seeking a recall of bail, argued that the minister was attempting to influence witnesses, and that his reinstatement was a misuse of the freedom granted by the court.
SC’s approach in this case could also set a precedent for other high-profile accused, who may similarly be asked to step down from influential positions as a condition for bail, to prevent interference with investigation and trial proceedings. SC indicated that it would send a wrong signal if a high-profile accused were re-inducted to public office immediately after getting bail.
A stern SC said it will recall its bail order if he continues to be minister as he may influence witnesses .
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and A G Masih said the court had granted bail to Balaji after he claimed to have resigned from govt to dispel concerns about influencing witnesses.
You are making mockery of process, SC tells Balaji
The bench noted that just two days after Senthil Balaji’s release, he was reinducted as a minister, which is “dishonesty” and the court cannot “tolerate such conduct”.
Noting that there was a “drastic” finding against Balaji in its earlier order — which stated that he had attempted to obstruct the corruption probe while serving as a minister — the bench observed that Balaji is now back in the same position and could again influence witnesses. The court added that it would recall its order and admit to having made a mistake in granting him bail if he continues to hold office.
“You have to make a choice between the post (minister) and freedom. What choice do you want to make? Make up your mind,” the bench asked senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi who were defending the minister.
Sibal submitted that since there was no likelihood of witnesses deposing in the near future and the trial was expected to begin by Dec, there was no need for the DMK politician to step down now. He even suggested to the court that the trial could be shifted to another state.
However, the bench remained firm, stating that the minister must make a choice. It emphasised that the grant of bail was not a licence to influence witnesses, adding, “You are making a mockery of the process.” Virtually pushed to the wall, Sibal sought time till Monday to make a choice given by the bench and assured to brief the court at 2 pm on that day.
Significantly, the bench — known for zealously upholding the principle that ‘bail is the norm, jail the exception’ — emphasised that the issue could have wider implications. It warned that misuse of bail could compel the court to abandon its liberal approach in protecting the rights of the accused. SC’s verdict in Balaji’s case had become a benchmark for granting bail in money laundering cases, with many accused receiving relief based on the ruling that bail should be granted if there is an inordinate delay in trial and the accused has been in custody for over a year.
Justice Oka, who authored that verdict, noted that the apex court subsequently issued several strong orders granting bail in similar cases — often to the dismay of ED. . He cautioned that any misuse of such bail orders could lead to a shift toward a more conservative approach in bail jurisprudence.
“What troubles us is (that) for the first time in a PMLA case we applied a law and granted bail. This order is being followed consistently. We were told that he (Balaji) is no longer a minister. Therefore, we ignored the allegation (of influencing) on the ground that he is no longer minister. Now you bring about a change within a few days of the order of granting bail and he is again the minister. This is not the way to deal with the court. After that, don’t blame us that this court is not liberal in granting bail. You know how difficult it is to get bail in PMLA,” the bench said.
The court also said that bail to Balaji was not granted on merit of the case, but to protect his rights under Article 21 of Constitution.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for ED, and advocate Pranav Sachdeva, representing the petitioner seeking a recall of bail, argued that the minister was attempting to influence witnesses, and that his reinstatement was a misuse of the freedom granted by the court.
SC’s approach in this case could also set a precedent for other high-profile accused, who may similarly be asked to step down from influential positions as a condition for bail, to prevent interference with investigation and trial proceedings. SC indicated that it would send a wrong signal if a high-profile accused were re-inducted to public office immediately after getting bail.
You may also like
Court reserves order on Rana petition to talk to family
Pakistan to chart response today as India suspends Indus Treaty, expels military attaches
Kashmir's Islamic Fraternity Condemns Tourist Killings, Calls For Peaceful Shutdown
UK hospital denies link to 'fake cardiologist' Yadav
BJP MP Tejashvi Surya accompanies families of Pahalgam terror attack victims
