TASMAC Corruption Case: Supreme Court Judge Justice Mohana Recuses From Hearing Senthil Balaji's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea
Balaji has filed a SLP against the Madras high court order which held that allegations against him involved a “loss of over ₹17 crore to the public exchequer”.
Balaji has approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's order denying his anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court judge, Justice V Mohana has recused from hearing former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji's plea seeking protection from arrest in a corruption case concerning alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).
"We will take it up at 1 pm..Justice Mohana is recusing..Me and my brother will hear it..owing to the urgency," CJI Kant said today as he took up the matter.
Balaji had filed a Special Leave Petition after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Madras high court yesterday, which held that allegations against him involved a “loss of over ₹17 crore to the public exchequer” and “required custodial interrogation.”
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi had yesterday mentioned Balaji’s SLP before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking an urgent hearing. The bench had accordingly agreed to list the case today.
A single judge bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan refused to grant anticipatory bail to Balaji in the corruption case registered against him by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), after the state government argued that the alleged ₹17-crore loss was only “the tip of the iceberg” and that the actual loss to the exchequer could exceed ₹100 crore.
The FIR in the case, registered on July 28, names former TASMAC Managing Director S Visakan, former senior regional managers T Rama Durai Murugan and R Panneer Selvam, former ministerial aide Bhaskar, and private individuals Rathesh Raj Shanmugavel and S Karthik, besides Senthil Balaji. It also refers to unidentified public servants, transport contractors, bottling companies and distilleries.
Allegedly, district and regional TASMAC officials manipulated tenders for bars and transport contracts, favoured selected bidders, enabled cartelisation among applicants and allowed bars to continue operating despite expired licences, causing substantial losses to the government.
DVAC has alleged irregularities in bar tenders across Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Erode, Namakkal, the Nilgiris and Karur, claiming that officials colluded with bar operators instead of raising fresh tenders wherever required. The FIR also alleged that transport contracts for 45 TASMAC depots were manipulated by misusing earnest money deposit demand drafts submitted by one applicant. Investigators claimed that unused demand drafts were diverted to help other transport contractors secure contracts.
On the operation of TASMAC bars, it has been alleged that licences were often controlled by third parties rather than successful bidders through organised syndicates. DVAC has stated that the material collected by it disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating and abuse of official position under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It has alleged that a nexus between political executives, senior TASMAC officials, private individuals and commercial entities manipulated decision-making within the corporation and caused significant loss to the public exchequer.
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI Vs THE STATE
Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: July 31, 2026