Write Comment     |     E-Mail To a Friend     |     Facebook     |     Twitter     |     Print

Supreme Court tells Senthilbalaji to choose between ministership and his freedom

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took stern exception to the continuance of Tamil Nadu Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise V. Senthilbalaji in the Cabinet while out on bail in money laundering proceedings linked to a cash-for-jobs ‘scam’, saying “you have to make a choice between the post and your freedom”.

A Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was on the brink of passing an interim order, but was persuaded by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Ram Shanker, appearing for the Minister, to give Senthilbalaji time till Monday to make the “choice”.

Justice Oka remarked that the Bench would even record in its order that it had been a “mistake” to grant him bail. The judge pointed out that Senthilbalaji had not been a Minister at the time of the granting of bail. He had been given bail not on the merits of the case but because the court stood up for the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court said Senthilbalaji’s continuation as a Minister placed him in a position of influence with regard to witnesses, and he could derail the trial.

Justice Oka said the apex court had released Senthilbalaji on bail in September 2024 despite a judgment of the court in 2022 plainly detailing how Senthilbalaji had used his position as Minister to “bring about settlements” with key witnesses in the case.

“Past conduct shows you have interfered with the predicate offences, and now you were appointed Minister within two days of getting bail. Now you have gone back to your former position of power... You were granted bail not on merits but only on the basis of Article 21... What signal are you sending if days after we give you bail you become a Minister?” Justice Oka asked.

The Bench termed Senthilbalaji’s conduct as “dishonest”. “You are playing with the process of law. You have made a mockery of the law,” Justice Oka said.

The judge said the court was bothered by the larger issue of powerful people using Article 21 to get bail only to misuse their liberty.

“We ignored the strong statements made in our judgment [of 2022] on the basis of your submissions then that you were no longer a Minister. We are shocked if this is the outcome of the court taking a view consistent with Article 21,” Justice Oka remarked.

Sibal said there was no chance of any interference with the trial. “Even if he was not a Minister, he could still influence... There are people who are not Ministers, but who can still wield influence,” the senior lawyer said.

The senior counsel submitted that no headway had taken place in the trial. The term of the current government in the State ends in 2026.

“There is no witness coming to the box,” Sibal said.

“You will ensure that no witness comes to the box,” Justice Oka retorted.

When Sibal suggested the trial be shifted out of the State, Justice Oka said that would not solve the problem.

The court finally agreed with Sibal to schedule the next hearing on Monday at 2 p.m. The senior counsel said a “choice” would be made by then and conveyed to the court. He assured the court that his side would not even present any further arguments in the case.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), said this was the fourth time the Minister was taking time to come to a decision.

The ED had submitted that Senthilbalaji could use his office to potentially influence witnesses in the case. A complainant, K. Vidhyakumar, had also mirrored the apprehension. Both the ED and Mr. Vidhyakumar have sought a recall of the bail.

In his recent affidavit, Senthilbalaji had argued that his appointment as a Minister had neither breached any bail conditions nor was it contrary to any law.

“There is not even a whisper of violation of any bail condition meriting interference by the Supreme Court. It may also be noted that the precondition for cancellation of bail, as is settled law, is that any condition of bail must be expressly violated by the accused,” Senthilbalaji had countered in his affidavit.

The Minister said the ED’s fears were not based on any cogent material. Vidhyakumar was not even a witness in the trial. Senthilbalaji questioned the locus standi of Vidhyakumar.

“Furthermore, it would appear that he has filed this application at the instance of the political opposition which is evident from the fact that he has been making continuous applications for impleadment since 2021 and has participated in various rounds of litigation,” the affidavit had said.

The Minister argued that if his alleged influence had been so “strong”, the prosecution would not have come to be launched and continued. He had secured bail after suffering incarceration of over 15 months.

He said the trial was at a nascent stage. There were more than 2,200 accused persons and over 500 witnesses. He urged that this was an attempt to incarcerate him for a long time.

Senthilbalaji is accused of playing a “central and pivotal role” in receiving kickbacks for jobs in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Chennai, and the Tamil Nadu State Corporation during his earlier tenure as Transport Minister.