New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Monday, informed ex-Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji that if he aspired to become a minister, then he could file an application requesting leave of the court, which would be entertained.
A two-member bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi also recommended trial of Balaji in money laundering case be shifted to Delhi and witnesses testify online.
The court was considering an application for clarification by Balaji that a paragraph in the April order passed by a bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka, who is now retired, did not equate to an order that he cannot be appointed as a minister pending the money laundering trial. Balaji was granted bail in the money laundering case involving the ‘cash-for-jobs’ scam.
On April 23, this year, the court had clarified to Balaji that he was released on bail not on merits, but on potential breach of Article 21 and warned him that the bail would be revoked if he did not step down, stating, “We are offering a choice: freedom or post? On April 27, Balaji stepped down from the Stalin-led state cabinet.
On his new plea, the bench remarked that the previous order didn’t disqualify Balaji from being a minister since it merely noted a submission.
“Courts have not stopped Balaji from being a minister and of course, we may not be able to stop him from becoming a minister, and but the day you get into being a minister and we realize that you had been previously indulging in tampering with the witnesses, yes, we will remember the bail,” the bench stated.
The bench stated it can’t change the order previously issued by a bench headed by Justice Oka. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Balaji, stated he is not asking for the order to be changed and there could not be an injunction where while prosecuted he cannot become a person in authority. “We do not interpret the order as an injunction against you becoming a minister.”.
However, you’re becoming a minister in our estimation and in light of these observations and other earlier orders, it will be a relevant consideration with regard to your continuation on bail,” the bench said. Sibal said this cannot be read as an injunction against me for holding a position of power, and in the bail order, there was not a word regarding him being a minister.
The court, however, stated that the mood in the state is affected by him having accepted ministerial responsibilities, and further added, “We have to see that a clear stream of justice is put.” Referring to an earlier order, the court stated that there is a finding against him.
Sibal stated that the trial has not yet started, and there is no interference of anyone, and there is no accusation that his client has approached anyone, and he has been cooperating completely. Sibal stated that this order should never be interpreted that there is a mandate that an individual who is facing any form of prosecution is not permitted to exercise power.
He added that if at any point they find that his client is involved in such activities, then the court can withdraw such an order and revoke his bail.
“After grant of bail, the court took very strong exception to you becoming a minister…till you earn a clean acquittal, you should not hold the public office….at any point of time say suppose you want to become a minister, then you probably file an application seek permission of the court, we will consider that,” the bench said.Sibal said that then the court is reading it as a mandate. The bench said it is better that he should not press this application. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that before Sibal withdraws the application, the court should see some judicial orders passed in this matter.”
This is my specific case that this is an abuse of process of law,” he said, adding Balaji’s application should be dismissed with costs.The bench declined to entertain an application moved by Balaji for a clarification with regard to the order that forced him to resign as minister in April this year.
The court also sought a response on an application seeking the transfer of the trial against Balaji outside Tamil Nadu. Mehta has stated that nothing is being done by the local police in the case. Senior counsel and Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari, argued, “This was unfair,” and it won’t be possible to conclude the trial as all the witnesses are located in the state.
Sibal said the all the accused are not parties. State’s counsel said if the trial is transferred, then it would seem like there is no trust in the system.The bench said that if the trial is shifted to any neutral location, the witnesses can depose online, and a dedicated court can take up the matter on a day-to-day basis.”We are not passing any orders. We are suggesting that such allegations against the state do not come,” the bench said.
Senior counsel A M Singhvi, who also appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, stated, “Of course, the state is concerned because they will say it is a biased state and there is no confidence in the state”.The state’s counsel was asked by the court to take instructions.
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram & 
Tamilnadu & Pondicherry