Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Supreme Court has today asked the Chief Justice of Madras High Court to place the habeas corpus petition filed against the arrest of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji before a larger bench as soon as possible, within a week.

Notably, today morning the division bench of the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on the habeas corpus petition moved by the Senthil's wife.

 The plea was heard by a bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy who differed in their opinion. While Justice Banu declared the Minister’s arrest to be illegal and held the habeas corpus petition maintainable, Justice Chakravarthy opined that since the petitioner had not made out a case to hold that the remand was illegal, thus the present plea was not maintainable.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta today about the split verdict.

"My difficulty is everyday there would be tampering of evidence. There is a neat question of law, no facts are disputed, I assure the court. Only question is if a habeas corpus lies..this can go on for months, this is the case of an influential person, the damage is irreversible..", the SG added.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Balaji interjected saying that the Supreme Court could not take up the plea as there was a split verdict. "How can you bypass the High Court.. there is a difference of opinion, it has to go to a third judge..Under what circumstances can your lordships say that we will bring it to this court..", he vehemently submitted.

SG then requested the Supreme Court to keep the present SLP pending, to which the bench agreed. The bench further clarified that Senthil would remain in judicial custody.

The matter will now be taken up on July 24.

Ten days back, the Supreme Court had adjourned the hearing in the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the Madras High Court's order in the habeas corpus petition filed against Senthil's arrest and allowing him to be shifted to a private hospital for his bypass surgery while observing that it would wait to hear the High Court's opinion.

A vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh, noting that the matter was to be heard the next day by the High Court, had adjourned the hearing.

SG, appearing for Enforcement Directorate, had told the division bench that High Court entertained Balaji's plea on the ground that remand order was passed after filing of petition.

"Please see Rahul Modi case...I have a strong case against the HC entertaining this petition in the first place..", SG Mehta had added.

To this, Justice Surya Kant had said, "High Court has used a very guarded language, it will determine.. entertaining a petition and its maintainability are different..".

"We have no reason to doubt the ability of the High Court. But what we can do is, clarify that the High Court has only issued notice, ED can urge before it that the habeas corpus plea is not maintainable..let us keep this pending, High Court can hear you and pass an appropriate order...", the bench had added.

SG Mehta had then continued to press the court for relief, and said, "This sets a very wrong precedent..all are equal but some are more than others..it will show as if habeas corpus petition can be used against remand. Look at the precedent it sets, 15 days gone in hospital and then High Court says it will examine.."

"Why did you make remand application the next day of this order, you could have told PMLA court to keep remand order in abeyance..", the Supreme Court had questioned SG Mehta. 

Balaji, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in an alleged cash-for-job scam on June 13. A habeas corpus petition was filed by Balaji’s wife Meghala against the arrest of her husband and allowing him to be shifted to a private hospital for treatment.

In May, the Supreme Court had cleared the decks for resumption of police probe against Tamil Nadu's Minister for Electricity, Excise, and Prohibition, V Senthil Balaji in the cash-for-job scam of 2011-15 by setting aside the Madras High Court's "shocking" order for de novo investigation, which even went against the previous order by the top court.

Case Title:  ED vs. Senthil Balaji