The Supreme Court, on Monday, expressed concern over Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Senthil Balaji being appointed as cabinet minister in the state government a day after he was granted bail in a money laundering case relating to an alleged cash-for-jobs scam case being investigated/prosecuted by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and its potential impact on the witnesses of his ministerial position.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was surprised at the development, noting that Balaji’s appointment raised legitimate concerns regarding the independence and confidence of witnesses.
“We grant bail, and the next day, you go and become a minister! This must stop. Anybody will be bound to think that witnesses will now be under pressure because of your position as a senior Cabinet Minister. What is this going on,” the bench asked as it heard a plea seeking recall of the court’s September 26 judgment that enlarged him on bail.
Taking exception to Balaji being sworn in as a cabinet minister soon after he was released on bail in an alleged cash-for-job scam, the bench underlined that the “basic principle here is that justice should not only be done but manifestly seen to be done”.
Having expressed its reservation over his appointment as minister in the State government, the bench sought a response from Balaji on the application by K Vidhya Kumar, one of the complainants in the case. The application has sought the recall of the September 26 order to ensure a free and fair trial in the case.
The September 26 judgment granting bail to Balaji was grounded on the sacrosanct constitutional principles of the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to curtail prolonged pre-trial detention under the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“The law laid down in the September 26 decision is a salutary judgment that benefits others as well,” the court said.
Posting the matter for hearing on December 13, the bench limited the scope of the hearing to a question of whether Balaji’s ministerial appointment created an environment of fear or pressure among witnesses. The bench asked Balaji’s advocate to take instructions on this aspect.