Taking Note Of Senthil Balaji's Resignation As TN Minister, Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel His Bail
In view of the fact that Senthil Balaji resigned as a Minister, the Supreme Court today (April 28) disposed of applications seeking to cancel the bail granted to him in the money laundering case related to the 'cash-for-jobs' case. A witness in the case had filed an application alleging that Balaji was trying to influence the trial using his position. The Enforcement Directorate also filed...
In view of the fact that Senthil Balaji resigned as a Minister, the Supreme Court today (April 28) disposed of applications seeking to cancel the bail granted to him in the money laundering case related to the 'cash-for-jobs' case.
A witness in the case had filed an application alleging that Balaji was trying to influence the trial using his position. The Enforcement Directorate also filed an application to recall the bail. Both applications were disposed of today.
Last week, cautioning Balaji against continuing as Minister, the Court had asked him to choose between his "post" and "freedom". Following the Court's rebuke, Balaji resigned from the post yesterday night.
Today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Enforcement Directorate, urged the bench of Justice Abhay S Ok and Justice AG Masih to impose a condition that Balaji should not become a Minister again while the matter is pending. SG told the bench that similar conditions have been imposed in the Arvind Kejriwal case. Without such a condition, Balaji will return as a minister after a month (Justice Oka is retiring on May 24), SG said, making the Court and the agency a "laughing stock."
"Your apprehension is that he will again become minister? At that stage, you can apply for cancellation of bail, "Justice Oka suggested. SG said that Balaji wielded immense power and influence over the State Government and pointed out that, even when he was in jail, he continued as a Minister without portfolio. Since the State is prosecuting the predicate offence (the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act), that trial will see no progress with Balaji's influence, the SG apprehended.
The bench however, observed that since Balaji has already resigned, there is no need to entertain the application. SG Mehta requested the bench to give a direction for the expeditious trial in the predicate case, alleging that Balaji was delaying the trial. This contention was disputed by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Balaji's lawyer. The bench did not pass any directions in this regard.
On April 23, 2025, the Supreme Court had warned Balaji that the bail granted to him would be cancelled if he did not resign from his Ministerial post. The Court asked Balaji to choose between retaining his Ministership and his liberty and gave him time till today to make a decision. Pursuant to this, Balaji resigned as cabinet minister yesterday (April 27, 2025).
On the previous hearing, the bench expressed strong objections to Balaji being sworn in as Minister soon after securing bail, referring to findings in a previous judgment that Balaji had forced people to withdraw complaints and had played a role in the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice Oka pointed out that bail was granted only due to violation of Article 21 because of the delay in trial and long incarceration, not on merits.
Justice Oka pointed out that Balaji's resignation as Minister was cited as a “change in circumstances” to seek bail before the High Court, but he was sworn in as Minister soon after the Supreme Court granted him bail. Justice Oka also expressed concern about politicians misusing the liberal bail standards recently developed by the Court for money laundering cases.
Background
In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted bail to Balaji, despite finding that there was a prima facie case against him, on the ground of his long incarceration (since June 2023) and the unlikelihood of the trial commencing soon. The Court also held that the requirement of speedy trial must be read as a condition in special statutes which impose stringent bail conditions.
On September 29, Balaji took oath as the Minister in the Cabinet led by Chief Minister MK Stalin.
On December 2, the Supreme Court expressed surprise at Balaji's appointment as a Cabinet Minister soon after being granted bail. In that hearing, the Court refused to recall the judgment granting bail but limited the scope of inquiry to whether witnesses in the case might be under pressure due to Balaji's ministerial position.
In its affidavit filed on December 13, the ED highlighted that Balaji was reinstated as a Minister for Electricity, Prohibition, and Excise within 48 hours of his release. It noted that even during his eight-month incarceration, Balaji served as a minister without portfolio, resigning only a day before his bail application was heard by the High Court.
The affidavit raised concerns over Balaji's influence on witnesses, many of whom had worked under him during his tenure as Transport Minister. It detailed instances of delays in the trial since Balaji's release, including prolonged cross-examination of a key forensic expert.
On December 20, the Court issued notice to the state government. The court directed the state to provide details on the pending cases against Balaji, the number of witnesses involved, and to distinguish between public servants and other victims. The court was particularly concerned about the potential intimidation of victims and public servants who would testify in the trial.
Case no. – MA 2454/2024 in Crl. A. No. 4011/2024
Case Title – K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.
Click Here To Read/Download Order