The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by DMK leader and former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji seeking a clarification on whether he could be reappointed as a minister while the trial in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam is pending. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi permitted Balaji to withdraw the plea after signalling its disinclination to entertain the application.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Balaji, argued that the court’s April 28 order contained no explicit restriction on his ministership and that there could not be any judicial injunction preventing him from holding ministerial office during prosecution.
The bench, however, remarked, “We don’t read the order or cannot read the order as an injunction on you in becoming a minister. However, if the atmosphere of the state is impacted by your becoming a minister or holding a post of power, then we have to ensure that the scheme of justice prevails.”
Justice Surya Kant questioned why the clarification application had been filed only after Justice Abhay S Oka, who earlier asked Balaji to resign as minister, had retired. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), also questioned the timing of the application, calling it “not in good taste”.
The bench reminded Sibal that the court had not barred Balaji from assuming office, but “after it was found that on becoming minister just days after being granted bail, you were exercising some influence in the trial of cases, the court said it is better you go to jail.”
Sibal maintained that such reasoning did not appear in the order, which was why the application was filed. Justice Bagchi noted that the allegations of influence were prima facie found to be correct.
As the bench indicated its stance, Sibal sought permission to withdraw the plea, which was allowed.
In a related matter, concerning a plea by victims of the alleged scam seeking appointment of a special public prosecutor, the bench asked the Tamil Nadu government why the trial should not be shifted to Delhi or another neutral location.
Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Amit Anand Tiwari, for the state, opposed the suggestion, saying it would reflect poorly on the state judiciary.
The bench clarified, “We are only giving a suggestion that why not transfer the trial to Delhi or to some other neutral ground because the investigation is complete and only trial remains. The witnesses can depose virtually, if required. This is the court’s suggestion because whenever a high state functionary or a minister is involved in criminal cases, allegations of influence or delay in trial are bound to be made.”
The court took on record a list of leading lawyers suggested by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the victims, for appointment as special public prosecutors, and asked the state to also propose names.
Balaji’s legal troubles stem from multiple cases alleging a cash-for-jobs scam during his tenure as Tamil Nadu Transport Minister. The Supreme Court is hearing a petition filed by Y Balaji challenging a March 28 Madras High Court order that dismissed pleas against clubbing multiple chargesheets in the case.
In July, the court had likened the trial to a “rudderless ship” and noted that a cricket stadium would be needed to accommodate over 2,000 accused and 500 witnesses. It questioned whether those named were “victims or victimisers” and sought detailed information from the state government.
Balaji had resigned from Chief Minister M K Stalin’s Cabinet on April 27 after the Supreme Court criticised his reinstatement days after obtaining bail. He was granted bail by the top court on September 26, 2024, after spending over 15 months in jail.
