The court took strong exception to Balaji’s reappointment as a minister in the DMK government following his release in September 2024, expressing concern that his position could enable him to influence witnesses.
Published Apr 23, 2025 | 8:39 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 23, 2025 | 8:39 PM
Supreme Court closes case on Senthil Balaji’s bail after His Resignation
Synopsis: The Supreme Court has asked Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji to choose between staying in office or keeping the bail granted to him in a cash-for-jobs case. The court said bail was given on the understanding that he would not return to a ministerial post, raising concerns that his position could be used to influence witnesses. Balaji has been given until 27 April to respond.
The Supreme Court has asked Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji to choose between continuing in his ministerial post or retaining the bail granted to him in the cash-for-jobs scam case.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih on Wednesday, 23 April, told Balaji’s legal counsel that bail had been granted on the understanding that he was no longer a minister.
“We granted bail believing that you would not hold ministerial office or influence the proceedings. Instead, you took office immediately. Is this how you treat the court’s order?” the court asked.
Balaji was arrested in June 2023 by the Enforcement Directorate over allegations that he accepted bribes in exchange for jobs in state transport corporations during his tenure as Transport Minister under the AIADMK government between 2011 and 2015. He joined the DMK in 2018.
He remained in judicial custody until September 2024, when the Supreme Court granted him bail.
Though he resigned from the cabinet following his arrest, he was reappointed as Minister for Electricity and Prohibition and Excise shortly after his release.
The court took strong exception to his reappointment, expressing concern that his ministerial position could allow him to influence witnesses. When Balaji’s counsel insisted there had been no interference, the bench responded sharply.
“We gave you three opportunities to clarify your stance, but you failed to utilise them. Your past conduct shows that you have taken actions capable of influencing the case,” the bench said.
The matter returned to the Supreme Court after a petition by one Vidhya Kumar challenging the bail.
In response, Balaji’s counsel submitted an affidavit stating that the court had not explicitly barred him from office and denying any attempt to influence witnesses. He said Balaji was prepared to accept any strict conditions imposed by the court.
The judges acknowledged they had not set specific conditions at the time of granting bail, citing the difficulty of securing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
“We did not impose conditions barring ministerial duties. However, now we see the risk of witness tampering due to the influence a minister holds. What message does this send to the witnesses?” the court said.
“We granted bail considering the circumstances and nature of the situation, but now we feel we made a mistake and are willing to admit it.”
While the court did not immediately cancel bail, it posed a clear question to Balaji’s legal team: “Do you wish to continue as a minister or should we cancel your bail?”
Balaji’s counsel sought time to respond. The matter has been adjourned to 27 April.
(Edited by Dese Gowda with inputs from Niranjan Kumar)
