The Supreme Court on Friday (31 July) granted interim protection from arrest to former Tamil Nadu Minister and sitting MLA V Senthil Balaji in a corruption case linked to alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). While hearing his appeal against the Madras High Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail, the Court directed him to cooperate with the investigation and comply with several conditions until further orders.
Background of the Case
The case arises from an FIR registered by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), alleging irregularities in liquor procurement, transport contracts, bar licences and other administrative decisions within TASMAC between 2021 and 2025.
The investigating agency has alleged that the case involves manipulation of bar licence tenders, alleged undue influence in administrative decisions and suspected financial irregularities. Balaji, who served as the Minister for Prohibition and Excise during part of the relevant period, has denied the allegations and approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea.
Court's Observation
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the need for custodial interrogation at the present stage, noting that much of the material appeared to be documentary in nature.
During the hearing, the Bench remarked,
"Hold an investigation. Hold an independent investigation. If he is guilty, he will face the music."
When the State expressed concern that custody might become necessary later, Justice Bagchi observed,
"If there is any breach or any perception of breach, please come to us."
The Court made it clear that Balaji must cooperate fully with investigators, deposit his passport and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Decision
Issuing notice on Balaji's appeal, the Supreme Court stayed his arrest pending consideration of his anticipatory bail plea. The Bench clarified that the interim protection is subject to strict compliance with its directions and left it open to the State to seek appropriate relief if circumstances require custodial interrogation during the investigation.
