Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Monday heard the matter concerning DMK leader V Senthil Balaji, who is embroiled in a money laundering case

It is to be noted that Balaji yesterday, on April 27, resigned from the cabinet of Chief Minister M. K. Stalin. 

The Special Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice A.G. Masih heard the matter. 

At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Balaji, presented a paper to the bench confirming his resignation, which was accepted by the Hon'ble Governor.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), voiced concerns that the resignation should be permanent until the conclusion of the trial, ensuring that Balaji does not return to power prematurely. Mehta expressed fears of the situation being ridiculed, given the past instances where Balaji continued to wield influence even while in jail.

"The resignation and the undertaking not to hold any office should remain in effect until the trial is concluded. It should not happen that he resigns now and returns to office after a month," the SG contended. 

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan raised additional concerns, suggesting that the court impose further conditions, including a prohibition on Balaji holding any public office while the trial is ongoing. He also cited past precedents where ministers were restricted from entering the state where their trial was taking place.

"I have serious concerns regarding the manner in which this individual has conducted himself. As an additional condition, it can be imposed that he should not hold any public office while the trial is pending. There have been instances where ministers and chief ministers were directed not to enter the state where their trial was underway or not to interfere with official files. I am suggesting that a similar condition, in the same spirit, would be necessary in this case," Sankarnarayanan submitted. 

Justice Oka responded by stating that any such concerns could be addressed at a later stage if necessary.

Mehta, however, emphasized that the seriousness of the case warranted that such conditions be implemented to prevent a recurrence of the situation where Balaji continued to hold significant influence despite his arrest.

The Court reviewed the history of Balaji's bail applications, noting that while he was granted bail on specific grounds in 2024, his reappointment as a Cabinet Minister soon after securing bail led to renewed legal action.

"The appellant was arrested in connection with an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). By the impugned order, the Single Judge rejected the appellant’s second application for bail. The second bail application was filed on the ground of a change in circumstances; namely, that the appellant ceased to hold the position of minister in the government from 13th February 2024. By judgment dated 26th September 2024, this Court granted bail, not on merits, but for the specific reasons recorded therein," the Court said. 

"The present application, and the Court's consideration of it, have been necessitated by the fact that within days of securing bail, the appellant was reappointed as a Cabinet Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the limited aspect indicated in the order dated 2nd December 2024, notice was issued on the application. Since then, the appellant, Balaji, repeatedly sought time to take instructions," it added. 

In light of the recent resignation, the Bench concluded that there was no further need to entertain the application.  "In light of this development, there is no occasion to entertain the present application,” the Bench ordered.

The Court made it clear that the matter would remain under scrutiny, but for now, Balaji’s resignation rendered further intervention unnecessary.

Previously

In December, the ED filed an affidavit before the Apex Court seeking a direction to modify the order of bail granted to Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji due to blatant disregard for the judicial process and his deliberate attempts to delay the trial. Despite the Supreme Court's directive to expedite the trial, Balaji has drawn out cross-examination of a prosecution witness on one pretext or another for nearly two months, it had stated. "This blatant disregard for the Supreme Court's instructions is a clear attempt to procrastinate and delay the trial proceedings," the ED had said.

Earlier, in December 2024, the Supreme Court had questioned the appointment of Balaji as a minister in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet right after he got bail in a money laundering case. With this view, a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih had decided to look into the issue of witnesses in the case being threatened after the appointment. However, the court has not recalled the judgment that had granted bail to Balaji.

Earlier, on September 26, 2024, a division bench had granted bail to Balaji after having reserved its verdict in August this year after it had questioned the Enforcement Directorate as to what was to be done in a situation where the trial was not moving forward.

Balaji has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's decision from February 2024 dismissing his bail plea. The High Court had decided the matter on merit and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial on a daily basis and conclude it within a three-month timeframe.

In August 2023, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals filed by Balaji and his wife, Megala, challenging the order granting the Enforcement Directorate his custody in a money laundering case.

Arrest & Allegations against Balaji

Allegedly, when Senthil Balaji, who recently resigned from the post of Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister, was serving as Transport Minister in Jayalalithaa’s Cabinet during 2011-15, a job racket took place where bribes were 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, 2023, and he was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. Meanwhile, after the Minister complained of 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 to have CABG bypass surgery at the earliest.

On the same day, the Minister's wife moved the High Court, alleging that his arrest had been done without following the due procedure, and sought his transfer to a private hospital for treatment.  Later, the high court denied the Minister interim bail but allowed him to be shifted to a private hospital in Chennai for treatment.

Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [MA 522/2025 in Crl.A. No. 4011/2024; Diary No. 9467/2025]