NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji has defended his reappointment to a cabinet position after his release on bail in a money-laundering case, arguing that it was part of his fundamental right to participate in public life and he cannot be “chastised” for holding a public office when he enjoys the mandate of the people.
Balaji was granted bail by the Supreme Court on September 26, 2024, after spending 15 months in jail and was inducted back into the state cabinet soon after, leading to an application filed by the victims seeking recall of his bail order. In December last year, the top court issued notice to Balaji, wondering whether his continuation in the cabinet would stand in the way of a fair trial since he occupies a position of influence and power with most witnesses in the case currently in government service.
In an affidavit filed on April 3, Balaji opposed the petition that seeks his ouster from the cabinet. “Any exercise to modify the bail conditions would necessarily have to consider that the Respondent No. 2 (Balaji) enjoys the popular mandate and that he cannot be chastised for seeking a political office in pursuance of the popular mandate. This would not only be contrary to the popular mandate but would also be violative of Respondent No. 2’s cherished right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to participate in public life.”
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih is scheduled to hear the case on Wednesday.
Balaji said a minister continues in office at the pleasure of the governor and the Constitution clearly spells out the grounds to seek a minister’s removal. Besides, Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 provides for disqualification of an elected representative on conviction in a criminal case punishable beyond 2 years of sentence and not in the event of a person being under trial.
The minister said the applicant K Vidhya Kumar had not accused him of violating any bail conditions imposed by the court to seek a recall. “If this court issues any direction, even for a limited duration, which would impact the office of minister held by the answering Respondent, the same would seriously prejudice the case of the respondent at trial and send a wrong message to the trial court,” he said.
Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 14, 2023 and was relieved from his charge as a minister for electricity and prohibition & excise. He continued as a minister without portfolio in the state government from June 16, 2023 till February 12, 2024, when he resigned ahead of the hearing on his bail petition in the Madras high court.
Balaji faces probes in separate offences lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the state police department in connection with a job fraud case during his tenure as transport minister in the state from 2014-15 when the AIADMK was in power. He was accused of receiving bribes for providing jobs in the state transport department during his tenure as minister in the AIADMK government.
In its verdict ordering his release on bail, the Supreme Court had acknowledged that there was a prima facie case against him, but strongly disapproved use of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) “as a tool” to prolong the incarceration of an accused.
ED backed the application to seek recall of Balaji’s bail in December last year and alleged that there was potential threat for influencing witnesses after he became a minister and the trial was getting delayed.
Balaji denied the allegations, underscoring that he had been present at every hearing in the trial court.
The minister also reasoned that the entire case against him was built when he was a sitting minister and the case would not have proceeded against him if he exerted so much influence.
The affidavit also pointed out that not a single witness had accused him of trying to influence them. He further proposed that if the ED believed that any witness was “vulnerable”, their trial may be conducted in a time-bound manner.
He alleged that the applicant was seeking to settle “political scores” by raising a bogey of protest against his bail by using the machinery of the judicial system.
In his counter-affidavit, the application said when the bail order was passed in September 2024, Balaji did not disclose his intention to become a minister and hence none of the bail conditions addressed such a scenario and applied to him as a private citizen and not a minister.
He further informed the court that the Arvind Kejriwal case cannot have any relevance to the present situation as here, the investigating agency in the predicate offence is the state police department over which Balaji exerts influence. Similar was not the case in the Kejriwal case.