Supreme Court Issues Notice On TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea Against Madras HC Allowing ED To Take Him Into Custody

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the petitions filed DMK leader and Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji and his wife Megala challenging the verdict of the Madras High Court holding that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was entitled to take him into custody in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam in the state.A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh posted the matter for hearing on July 26 at 2 PM.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, started by pointing out that the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment held that ED officers were not 'police officers'. Referring to Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the senior counsel stated that only an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making the investigation can take an accused into police custody. As under the PMLA Act, ED officers are 'in charge of the police station' or 'police officers', they are not entitled to police custody, Sibal argued.The senior counsel further contended that the Enforcement Directorate was not entitled to take Balaji into police custody in any case since they did not seek his custody during the first 15 days of remand on the ground that he was hospitalised. As held in the Anupam Kulkarni case, police custody is not permissible beyond the first 15 days of remand. Although Anupam Kulkarni was doubted by a coordinate bench in the Vikas Mishra case, the former has not been overruled.Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta pointed out that ED officers are entitled to make arrests as per Section 19 PMLA. Also, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to PMLA and hence Section 167 CrPC will also apply to PMLA investigation in the absence of any inconsistency. "There cannot be a situation that I arrest somebody only to be sent to judicial custody. The very purpose of arrest is investigation", he said. If there is a rigid view that police remand is not possible after 15 days, it can lead to absurd results, the SG argued, by illustrating an example of the magistrate denying the police remand and the high court later overruling that judgment. If the first fifteen days period elapse by the time of the high court's decision, would it mean that the investigating agency cannot have police custody, the SG asked.Although Sibal sought interim protection from police custody, the bench declined to pass any such order by orally saying that "nothing will happen". The bench pointed out that the third judge, after ruling in favour of the ED, has referred the matter to the division bench to decide from which date the period of 15 days period should be reckoned. "We can't go take police custody because the third judge has said that the division bench will decide from when the 15th day will start. We can't go and take police custody", SG Tushar Mehta also said."If the division bench decides against us in the meantime, where will we go?", Sibal asked."Nothing will happen", Justice Bopanna assured. Background In June, DMK leader V Senthil Balaji and cabinet minister in the MK Stalin-led Tamil Nadu government was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate for his alleged role in a cash-for-job scam in the state, which is believed to have taken place between 2011-2016 during his tenure as the transportation minister under the then-AIADMK regime. This development came after the Supreme Court in May set aside a direction of the Madras High Court staying the proceedings in the money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate, effectively removing all fetters to the ED investigation. The top court also gave a nod to the agency to include the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the investigation. In the same month, the Madras High Court denied interim bail to Balaji but allowed his family’s request to transfer him to a private hospital. Balaji was arrested by the central agency after an 18-hour-long extensive search and interrogation conducted at his official residence, his official chamber at the state secretariat, and his brother’s residence. After the minister’s arrest, his wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the high court praying, inter alia, that the legislator be allowed to be shifted to a private hospital to undergo medical treatment. The Enforcement Directorate challenged the high court agreeing to take the petition on board and passing an interim order before the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not maintainable. But a vacation bench of the top court adjourned the hearing in the central agency’s plea, choosing to wait for the high court to deliver its verdict first. However, earlier in July, the high court delivered a split verdict. On the one hand, Justice Nisha Banu observed that the habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji’s family was maintainable since, inter alia, the ED officers did not have the powers of a station house officer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and as such,...

Supreme Court Issues Notice On TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea Against Madras HC Allowing ED To Take Him Into Custody

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

Supreme Court Issues Notice On TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea Against Madras HC Allowing ED To Take Him Into Custody

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers