The Supreme Court on Monday modified its order directing former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji to appear twice every week before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the cash-for-jobs case, leaving it open for the investigating officer to call him as and when required.
The order was passed on an application moved by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader against the order granting him bail on September 26, 2024 in the money laundering case probed by the ED. As a bail condition, he was required to appear before the ED deputy director every Monday and Friday, and to regularly attend court proceedings.
The court further modified the bail order by allowing Balaji to seek permission from the trial court for exemption from personal appearance on account of any specific hardship.
The order passed by a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “The clause contained in the order of September 26, 2024 is modified to the extent that the appellant shall appear before the Deputy Director, ED as and when so required. For this purpose, advance notice shall be communicated to the appellant.”
It further stated, “As and when on account of any specific hardship, if the appellant cannot appear before the special court, he will be at liberty to apply for exemption.”
During the hearing, the central agency had requested the court to ensure the stiff conditions are not lifted as Balaji may refuse to cooperate with the trial. The bench, however, said, “If he does not cooperate, it is a ground for you to come to us to seek cancellation of bail.”
The court modified its order after Balaji’s lawyers said that the investigation in the case is over and the charge sheet has been filed by ED. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the former minister, said that no purpose will be served in continuing to visit the investigating officer twice every week as his client is willing to come as and when he is required.
The complainants in the case had also opposed the request, citing his political influence in the state due to which the court imposed such harsh conditions while granting bail. Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, representing the victims, said, “There is no change in circumstances for the accused to seek modification of bail conditions.”
The bench remarked, “From September 26, 2024, a man goes on appearing before the ED every week Monday and Friday and you say there is no change in circumstance. Now the investigation is complete. Instead of every week, it may be once a month.”
Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for ED, said it is a “fair” suggestion. However, Sibal said that why should there be such a condition as he is willing to appear whenever a request is made by the ED officer.
The court noted there has been no default in the bail conditions. “At least save the harassment of your officer who has to wait for him every Monday and Friday,” it said.
Last month, while entertaining the application, the top court had observed that the stringent bail conditions were imposed at a time when the investigation was ongoing and had sought the response of ED on whether any suitable modification can be made to them.
The case against Balaji arose out of a cash-for jobs scam where alleged irregularities were found in the recruitments to the state transport department during his tenure as transport minister from 2011 to 2015 in the AIADMK-led government. ED arrested him in connection with the case in June 2023.
The order granting bail last year had placed several stringent conditions while granting bail. But, the application sought modification of specific conditions requiring Balaji to mark his attendance every Monday and Friday between 11 am and 12 noon in ED’s Chennai office, once every month before the investigating officers (IOs) of the three scheduled offences, and regular presence before the courts dealing with these cases.
Balaji stated that in the past year, he appeared 116 times before the ED, 14 times before the IO in the predicate offences, and on every hearing date before the trial courts. He stated that while passing the bail order, the court was guided by the fact that investigation has to be completed and with the probe already over, he cited it as a “material change in circumstance” to seek modification.
About the Author
