Resign As Minister Or Bail Will Be Cancelled; Choose Between Post & Freedom : Supreme Court Tells Senthil Balaji

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 9) warned Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji that the bail granted to him in the money laundering case over the 'cash-for-jobs' scam would be cancelled if he did not resign from the Ministership.

The Court asked Balaji to make a choice between his Minister post and liberty, and gave him time till next Monday to decide. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing the applications seeking to recall the bail granted to Balaji on the ground that he was influencing the witnesses.

During the hearing, the bench took strong objection to the fact that Balaji was sworn in as a Minister soon after he got bail.

"You have to make a choice between the post (Minister) and freedom. What choice you want to make?," Justice Oka asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Balaji. Justice Oka referred to the observations in a previous judgment which recorded that as a Minister, he had forced people to withdraw the complaints and the role played in the predicate offence(under the Prevention of Corruption Act)

Justice Oka said that the bail was granted only on the grounds of delay in trial and long incarceration. "You were granted bail not on merits, but on the ground of Article 21 violation." Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Enforcement Directorate, pointed out that Balaji, to plead for bail, had said that he had resigned as a Minister. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also for Balaji, said that the trial can be shifted out of the State if there was an apprehension of influence by him. "That will not serve the purpose. There are 1000 witnesses," Justice Oka said. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for a witness who is alleging intimidation by Balaji, said, "he (Senthil Balaji) can move out of the State."

 Justice Oka pointed out that his resignation as a Minister was cited as a "change in circumstances" to plead for bail before the High Court; however, soon after bail was granted by the Supreme Court, he took oath as a Minister. Justice Oka wondered what signals the Supreme Court would be sending if such a person is allowed to be on bail, despite the categorical findings in the earlier judgment about the role played by him in the predicate offence.

"We will not tolerate this conduct. We are giving a choice. Freedom or post? There are findings recorded in the reported judgement of this court attributing role to him in the predicate offence as Minister. Can we ignore that? What signals are we sending?" Justice Oka said. Justice Oka said that the bench will say that it made a mistake by ignoring the previous judgment (which had findings against Balaji).

"We will record it in the order that we have made a mistake by ignoring the judgements against you, because the entire hearing proceeded on the footing that he is no longer minister. We will accept our mistake," Justice Oka said.

When Sibal asserted that there was no chance of Balaji influencing witnesses, the bench disagreed. "There is no witness coming in the box, how will I influence?" Sibal said. "You are preventing them from coming," Justice Oka retorted.

When Sibal sought time to get back with instructions, the bench initially refused to grant time, saying that it had already granted three opportunities. In another attempt to persuade the bench, Sibal submitted that the summoning orders in the case will be completed only after January 2026 and by the time the trial commences, the term of the present State Government would end. So there is no question of influencing the trial, he claimed. However, this submission did not appeal to the bench, which said that it cannot predict electoral outcomes.

Bench expresses concerns about misuse of Supreme Court's liberal stand on bail

During the hearing, Justice Oka also expressed concerns about politicians misusing the liberal bail jurisprudence developed by the Court in money laundeirng cases.

"What troubles us is for the first time in case of PMLA we have applied a law that if case is not going to commence we will grant Bail. This order is being followed consistently. When we read the order of the trial court high court we were told that he is no longer minister. Therefore we ignored the allegation based on the judgements on the ground that he is no longer minister. Now you bring about a change within few days of order 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," Justice Oka said.

Specifically addressing Sibal, Justice Oka said, "Since you are appearing in this matter, we are worried about something else. That such politicians apply for bail and this if this is the classic thing, what will be the approach of the court, we are worried about that. We are worried about liberty, and we have been passing such strong orders in bail applications. Perhaps Mr. Raju(ASG SV Raju) is the biggest victim in this he is not here today."

Ultimately, the bench accepted Sibal's request for time till Monday to get instructions in the matter.

The Court was hearing a plea seeking recall of the court's order granting Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji bail in a money laundering case related to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.

On the previous date, the Court criticized Balaji's counsel for taking a “technical defence” that a formal notice has not been issued to Balaji in the plea.

Justice Oka pointed out that Balaji had been represented by Senior Advocates in all previous hearings in the recall application without raising this objection.

Despite expressing displeasure with Balaji's counsel, the bench granted Balaji a final opportunity to file a counter affidavit.

Background

As per the September 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court granted bail to Balaji, despite finding that there was a prima facie case against him, on the ground of his long incarceration (since June 2023) and the unlikelihood of the trial commencing soon. The Court also held that the requirement of speedy trial must be read as a condition in special statutes which impose stringent bail conditions.

On September 29, Balaji took oath as the Minister in the Cabinet led by Chief Minister MK Stalin, with charge over the portfolios of electricity, non-conventional energy development, prohibition & excise.

On December 2, the Supreme Court expressed surprise at Balaji's appointment as a Cabinet Minister soon after being granted bail. In that hearing, the Court refused to recall the judgment granting bail but limited the scope of inquiry to whether witnesses in the case might be under pressure due to Balaji's ministerial position.

In its affidavit filed on December 13, the ED highlighted that Balaji was reinstated as a Minister for Electricity, Prohibition, and Excise within 48 hours of his release. It noted that even during his eight-month incarceration, Balaji served as a minister without portfolio, resigning only a day before his bail application was heard by the High Court.

The affidavit raised concerns over Balaji's influence on witnesses, many of whom had worked under him during his tenure as Transport Minister. It detailed instances of delays in the trial since Balaji's release, including prolonged cross-examination of PW4, a key forensic expert. The affidavit alleged that Balaji's repeated adjournments, requests for cloned digital evidence, and changes in counsel had prolonged the trial.

On December 20, the Court issued notice to the state government. The court directed the state to provide details on the pending cases against Balaji, the number of witnesses involved, and to distinguish between public servants and other victims. The court was particularly concerned about the potential intimidation of victims and public servants who would testify in the trial.

Case no. – MA 2454/2024 in Crl. A. No. 4011/2024

Case Title – K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.