We grant bail & next day you become minister: SC

We grant bail & next day you become minister: SC

SC To Senthil Balaji: Would Witnesses Not Be Pressured?

AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com 3.12.2024

New Delhi : Continuation of DMK leader V Senthil Balaji as a minister in the Tamil Nadu govt seems to have become untenable with Supreme Court on Monday questioning his appointment immediately after getting bail from the apex court in a money laundering case linked to a cashfor-jobs scam. The court asked if witnesses would not feel under pressure after an accused is restored to public office when the trial is pending. In what can have implications for similarly placed politicians, SC, which has recently modulated rigorous bail provisions of special laws such as PMLA and UAPA by ruling that the principle ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is applicable also in these offences, indicated that it would send a wrong signal if a high-profile accused was reinducted to public office immediately after bail.

It said justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. A bench of Justices A S Oka and Augustine George Masih, which had granted bail to Balaji on Sept 26, decided to examine a plea seeking recall of the order on the ground that witnesses may not feel free to depose against a cabinet minister. The court said it would not re-examine its verdict but would examine the limited aspect of apprehension that witnesses may feel in the case.

Reinstatement post bail: SC to study impact on witnesses In what can have implications for similarly-placed politicians, the SC, which has recently modulated rigorous bail provisions of special laws like PMLA and UAPA by ruling that the principle ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is applicable also in these offences, indicated that it would send a wrong signal if a high-profile accused was re-inducted to public office immediately after bail. It said justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. A bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih, which had granted bail to Balaji on Sept 26, decided to examine a plea seeking recall of the order on the ground that witnesses may not feel free to depose against a cabinet minister. The court said it would not re-examine its verdict but would examine the limited aspect of apprehension that witnesses may feel in the case. In contrast to the convention of politicians quitting their official positions after being arrested and chargesheeted — something that was followed across the political spectrum for decades — some high-profile politicians have held on to their positions despite having been incarcerated. The SC, which did not object to the departure from convention so far, now seems to be firming up a position against it.

The court’s remarks in Balaji’s case follow its earlier order where it gave the chief of Trinamool Congress’s youth wing bail on the condition that he would not hold any official position. The court had granted Balaji bail holding that rigorous bail provisions in laws like PMLA, UAPA and NDPS Act could not become a “tool” to keep an undertrial accused in jail for an unreasonably long time. After spending 15 months in custody, Balaji came out on bail and was re-inducted as minister three days later. “The present application is based on apprehension. The apprehension is based on the fact that immediately after we enlarged the second respondent on bail by the judgment and order dated Sept 26, the second respondent has been appointed as a cabinet minister of the state. The apprehension is that considering the seriousness of the allegations against the second respondent in the predicate offences, witnesses may not be in the frame of mind to depose against the second respondent who is now holding the position of a cabinet minister. This is the only aspect on which, prima facie, we are inclined to consider the application. 

We make it clear that as there is no reason to interfere with the view taken on merits in the order dated Sept 26, the adjudication of this application shall remain confined to the aforesaid aspect only,” the bench said in its order. Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for the petitioner who claimed to be a victim of the cashfor-jobs scam, said Balaji wielded tremendous influence in the state govt and free and fair trial may not be possible if he continued to remain a minister. Sensing the mood and prima facie opinion of the bench, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Balaji, urged the court to refrain from issuing notice in the case and assured that he would take instruction and brief the court on the next date of hearing