The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticized the legal team representing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji for taking a "technical defence" in the plea seeking to recall the court’s earlier order granting him bail in a money laundering case linked to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.
A special bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, which had previously granted bail to Balaji, expressed displeasure over the argument that a formal notice had not been issued to him. The bench remarked that the court had been "taken for a ride."
Court’s Observations on the "Technical Defence"
In its order, the Supreme Court recorded that Balaji had been represented by a Senior Advocate in each of the previous hearings, despite no formal notice being issued. The bench expressed shock at the argument raised by Balaji’s counsel, stating:
"We are shocked to know that today counsel representing the second respondent (Senthil Balaji) raises a contention that formal notice has not been issued. Such contention should never have been raised. By this time, the second respondent could have always kept his reply/counter ready."
Previously, on February 12, the court had adjourned the matter after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Balaji, sought additional time to take instructions from his client. However, when questioned in the latest hearing, Rohatgi simply responded, "I (Balaji) remain where I am."
Read Also: Supreme Court Denies Permission for Bharath Hindu Munnani's Protest at Thiruparakundram Hill
Rohatgi further submitted that the court had only issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu and not directly to his client. This statement irked the bench, prompting Justice Oka to ask:
"Then why have you appeared? Mr. Rohatgi, we are warning you. If you take such a technical defence, we will pass an…"
Justice Oka further noted that Balaji had been represented by Senior Advocates in all previous hearings related to the recall application, yet no such objection was raised before.
Court Grants Final Opportunity Despite Displeasure
Despite expressing dissatisfaction with Balaji’s legal stance, the Supreme Court granted him a final opportunity to file his response. The court stated:
"Though such an unfair stand is taken, we cannot be unfair to the second respondent. Hence, we grant a time of 10 days to the second respondent to file the counter. No further time shall be granted."
Read Also: Supreme Court Criticizes Punjab Government Over Absence of Lawyers in Court Cases
Justice Oka also highlighted the challenges in constituting special benches and expressed concern over how the case was being handled:
"Please remember how difficult it is to constitute benches. We are struggling with time. And we have completely been taken for a ride. This conduct we will not tolerate. And this also brings on record the conduct of the second respondent."
Background of the Case
In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted bail to Senthil Balaji despite acknowledging a prima facie case against him. The court’s decision was based on his long incarceration since June 2023 and the unlikelihood of an immediate trial. The court had also emphasized that the principle of a speedy trial must be considered in cases with stringent bail conditions.
On September 29, 2024, Balaji was reinstated as a Cabinet Minister under Chief Minister MK Stalin. He was given charge of portfolios including electricity, non-conventional energy development, prohibition, and excise.
However, on December 2, 2024, the Supreme Court raised concerns over Balaji’s appointment as a minister soon after being granted bail. While the court refused to recall the bail order, it limited its inquiry to whether Balaji’s position could potentially influence witnesses in the case.
Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) Affidavit and Concerns
On December 13, 2024, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed an affidavit highlighting that Balaji was reinstated as Minister for Electricity, Prohibition, and Excise within 48 hours of his release. The affidavit pointed out that even during his eight-month incarceration, he continued serving as a minister without a portfolio, resigning only a day before his bail application was heard.
The ED raised concerns regarding Balaji’s influence over witnesses, particularly those who worked under him during his tenure as Transport Minister. The affidavit detailed instances of delays in trial proceedings following his release, including:
- Prolonged cross-examination of key forensic expert (PW4)
- Repeated adjournments requested by Balaji’s legal team
- Requests for cloned digital evidence
- Frequent changes in legal counsel causing trial delays
Court’s Direction to the State Government
On December 20, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu state government. The court directed the government to provide:
- Details of pending cases against Balaji
- Number of witnesses involved
- Distinction between public servants and other victims
The court particularly emphasized the potential risk of intimidation of victims and public servants who are expected to 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.
