Senthil Balaji.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday told former Tamil Nadu minister and DMK strongman Senthil Balaji that if he wanted to become a minister, then he should file an application seeking permission of the court, which would be considered.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also suggested the trial against Balaji in money laundering case should be transferred to Delhi and the witnesses should depose online.
The court was dealing with an application for clarification by Balaji that a paragraph in the April order passed by a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka, who has since retired, did not amount to an order that he cannot become a minister during the pendency of the money laundering trial.
Balaji was granted bail in the money laundering case in connection with the 'cash-for-jobs' scam.
On April 23, this year, the apex court had made it clear to Balaji that he was granted bail not on merits, rather on possible violation of Article 21 and cautioned him that bail could be cancelled if he did not resign, saying, “We are giving a choice: freedom or post? On April 27, Balaji resigned from the Stalin-led state cabinet.
On his fresh plea, the bench said that the earlier order did not prevent Balaji from becoming a minister, as it only recorded a submission.
"The court has not prevented Balaji from becoming a minister and of course, we might not be in a position to prevent him from becoming a minister, and but the day you become a minister and we find that you have been earlier indulging in influencing the witnesses, yes, we will recall the bail,” the bench said.
The bench said it cannot modify the order earlier passed by a bench led by Justice Oka.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Balaji, said he is not seeking modification of the order, and there cannot be an injunction that, while being prosecuted, he cannot hold a position of power.
"We do not read the order as an injunction on you from 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, said the atmosphere in the state is impacted by him accepting ministerial responsibilities, and added, “we have to ensure that a clear stream of justice is put”.
Citing an earlier order, the court said there is a finding against him.
Sibal said the trial is yet to commence, and there is no influence of anybody, and there is no allegation that his client has contacted anybody, and he has cooperated fully.
Sibal said that this order should not be understood that there is a mandate that a person who is undergoing any kind of prosecution is not entitled to hold power.
He said if it is found at any stage that his client is indulging in such activities, the court may recall that order and cancel his bail.
"After the 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 said nothing is being done by the local police in the matter.
Senior advocate and Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari, contended, “This was unfair," and it will not be possible to conclude the trial as all the witnesses are based in the state. Sibal said the all the accused are not parties. State’s counsel said if the trial is transferred, then it would look like there is no trust in the system.The bench said that if the trial is transferred to any neutral place, the witnesses could 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 advocate A M Singhvi, also representing the Tamil Nadu government, said, "Of course, the state is concerned because they will say it is a biased state and there is no confidence in the state".The court asked the state’s counsel to seek instructions.