[Senthilbalaji's arrest] Madras HC to hear arguments on points of difference in opinion in split verdict on July 11

Justice CV Karthikeyan of the Madras High Court on Friday framed the points of difference in opinion expressed in the split verdict delivered by a division bench in the habeas corpus petition moved by the wife of Minister V. Senthilbalaji against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a PMLA case.

Following a split verdict by a bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, the matter was placed before Justice Karthikeyan in accordance with Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.

The judge noted that although the division bech should have framed the points of differences of opinion in their judgment, but since they had not done so, therefore, he was required to cull out such points and answer the same.

Justice Karthikeyan further pointed out that though Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for ED had already prepared a note on the points of difference in the split verdict, and the same had been done by Senior Counsel N.R.Elango appearing for the petitioner also, there were some points on which one judge had expressed opinion whereas the other judge had not.

"This aspect was with specific reference to the applicability or non applicability or otherwise of Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure qua Section 19 of the PMLA Act," Justice Karthikeyan highlighted.

Regarding the issue, the judge held that arguments on that point would necessarily have to be advanced by both the sides since the entire issue also surrounds 'arrest' but the same could not be stated as a point of difference. "as this Court can never answer or uphold an opinion given by one of the learned Judges. I would call upon the learned Senior Counsels to advance arguments as a step to reach a conclusion on the actual points of difference," therefore, the judge opined.

Justice Karthikeyan concluded that in the split verdict, there was a difference of opinion on following points:

(i) Whether Enforcement Directorate has the power to seek custody of a person arrested?

(ii) Whether the Habeas Corpus Petition itself is maintainable after a judicial order of remand is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

(iii) The Consequential issue as to whether ED would be entitled to seek exclusion of time for the period of hospitalization beyond the first 15 days would be automatically answered depending on the decision on the 1st issue above.

Now, the senior counsel appering for both the parties will advance their argument on the abovementioned points.

The matter will next be heard on July 11, 2023.

Moreover, Justice Karthikeyan ordered that the Sessions Judge may proceed further on extension of remand on expiry of the existing period of remand which is to expire on 12.07.2023.

Case against Senthilbalaji:

Allegedly, when Senthilbalaji, the present Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister, was serving as Transport Minister in Jayalalithaa’s Cabinet during 2011-15, a job racket took place where bribe was sought for jobs in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation. It is alleged that he had obtained money from third parties promising jobs in the Transport Department and thereafter cheated them.

The ED arrested the Minister on June 14 and he was remanded to judicial custody till June 28.

Meanwhile, after the Minister complained for chest pain, he was admitted to Tamil Nadu Government Multi Super Specialty Hospital at Omandurar Estate in Chennai for a medical checkup. At the government hospital, the Minister was advised CABG-Bypass surgery at the earliest.

On the same day, the Minister's wife moved the high court alleging that his arrest has been done without following the due procedure and sought his transfer to a private hospital for treatment.

On June 15, though the high court denied the Minister interim bail but allowed him to be shifted to a private hospital in Chennai for treatment.

Thereafter, a division bench delivered a split verdict in the plea, after which High Court Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala listed the matter before the bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan.

Case Title: Megala v. State