Senthil Balaji HCP: Matter posted for July 7

The Madras high court on Thursday posted for July 7, the habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by arrested Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji’s wife, to enable the petitioner’s advocate to find out the convenience of senior counsels from New Delhi to argue the case on Saturday.

Following a split verdict in the HCP filed by Balaji’s wife Megala, Chief Justice S S V Gangapurwala had named Justice C.V.Karthikeyan as third judge to hear the case.

A division bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy had on July 4 given a split verdict on the matter.While Justice Nisha Banu had ordered the HCP was maintainable, the other judge differed.

Play button

Balaji was arrested last month by the ED in a cash for jobs scam when he was the Transport minister in the earlier AIADMK regime.

READ ALSO  KVS can't deny admission under EWS category on ground of certificate issuedby another state: HC

When the matter came up for hearing before Justice Karthikeyan on Thursday, N R Elango, appearing for the petitioner submitted that Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal will also appear and argue before this court on the matter and hence, it may be heard on July 11.

Also Read

READ ALSO  Governor cannot take unilateral decision on removing Senthil Balaji from ministerial post: Tamil Nadu govt tells HC

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared through video conferencing, submitted that any delay in this matter would affect the interest of the public.

The judge said July 8 will be a convenient day for all to hear the case. The judge asked Elango to find out the convenience of Senior Counsel from Delhi to argue the case on July 8 and inform the court on Friday.

When the judge indicated that the counsels could address the points relating to the difference of opinion between the two judges, who gave the split verdict, Special Public

READ ALSO  Former TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Remand Extended by City Court

Prosecutor N Ramesh for the Enforcement Directorate submitted they have already prepared a chart in a tabular form regarding the difference of opinion between the two judges.

Directing the ED to circulate the chart to the counsel for the petitioner, the judge asked the ED to produce all the relevant records.

Related Articles

Latest Articles