SUPREME COURT ISSUES NOTICE TO ED ON FORMER TN MINISTER SENTHIL BALAJI’S REQUEST FOR EASING BAIL CONDITIONS IN MONEY LAUNDERING CASE:

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on an application filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji, who sought relaxation of certain bail conditions imposed in a money laundering case linked to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, with Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Narendra Hooda representing Balaji. Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the ED, while Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the complainant, Y. Balaji.

Kapil Sibal informed the Court that the request for modification pertains specifically to two bail conditions set out in the September 2024 bail order. The first is the condition requiring Balaji to mark his attendance every Monday and Friday between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. at the ED’s Chennai office, along with his mandatory appearance before investigating officers of the scheduled offences on the first Saturday of each month. The second concerns the requirement that he remain regularly and punctually present before all courts handling the scheduled offences as well as the Special Court and cooperate in ensuring early disposal of the cases. Sibal argued that these conditions have become unnecessary in light of the completed investigation and the filing of the complaint. He emphasized that Balaji has consistently cooperated with the authorities and has appeared before the ED on 116 occasions, which demonstrates that he is neither a flight risk nor evasive.

Opposing the plea, ED counsel Zoheb Hossain maintained that the earlier bench which imposed the conditions was mindful of their stringent nature and that these conditions had contributed meaningfully to the smooth progress of the trial. He contended that there was no justification for relaxing them at this stage.

After hearing both sides, Justice Surya Kant observed that the bench did not intend to express any conclusive view at this stage. However, the Court directed the ED to clarify whether Balaji’s continued appearance under the earlier condition is still required. Justice Kant further remarked that the proceedings were purely judicial in nature and should not be equated with a political contest.

Balaji had been granted bail by the Supreme Court on September 26, 2024. The bail order followed a prior hearing in August during which a bench of Justices Abhay Oka and A.G. Masih had expressed concern over delays in the trial. While pronouncing the verdict, Justice Oka noted that stringent bail requirements under laws such as the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot operate alongside excessive trial delays to perpetually incarcerate an accused. The Court relied on the principles laid down in *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb*, affirming the constitutional authority of courts to grant bail when prolonged delays make continued detention incompatible with Article 21 rights, particularly the rights to liberty and a speedy trial.

Despite granting bail based on trial delay, the Court also recorded a prima facie case against Balaji. It noted that printed files retrieved from a pen drive seized during the investigation had been duly certified, and there was initial evidence of a ₹1.34-crore deposit in his bank account. Balaji’s explanation attributing the cash deposits to his MLA salary and agricultural income was not supported by material.

Balaji, a former Transport Minister, faces allegations of running a scheme between 2011 and 2016 in which money was collected from job aspirants in exchange for promised posts in the Transport Department. Following multiple complaints, the ED registered an ECIR and arrested him in June 2023 under the PMLA. The present plea concerns only the relaxation of specific bail conditions previously imposed by the Supreme Court.