Setback for TN minister as Madras HC upholds legality of his arrest
The ED arrested Senthil Balaji last month in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam that occurred in the state's transport department, and he continues to be a Minister without portfolio. (File Photo)
Listen to this article
Setback for TN minister as Madras HC upholds legality of his arrest
x
IN a setback to Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji, the Madras High Court on Friday upheld the legality of his arrest in a money laundering case and his subsequent remand in judicial custody by a sessions court.
The verdict was delivered by Justice C V Karthikeyan, the third judge appointed by Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala to determine the legitimacy of the minister’s arrest, following a split verdict delivered by a Division Bench of Justices D Bharatha Chakravarthy and J Nisha Banu on July 4.
In his decision Justice Karthikeyan held that the minister’s arrest was legally valid. He also clarified the Enforcement Directorate’s right to seek custody of an arrested accused, even though they are not police. “When arrest is possible, seeking custody of the arrested accused is permissible,” the judge said. He agreed with the findings of Justice Chakravarthy of the Division Bench, which was against the view of Justice Banu.
Senthil Balaji was arrested on June 14 by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with the cash-for-job scam that surfaced in 2015. The arrest was made after an 18-hour-long interrogation and search of his official residence and chamber at the state Secretariat. He was hospitalised after the arrest due to chest pain.
The minister’s arrest led to legal wranglings, with a split verdict pronounced by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The Chief Justice subsequently appointed Justice Karthikeyan as the third judge to determine the arrest’s legality.
Addressing the issue of hospitalisation period of Balaji for considering the ED’s custody application, the judge said the period of hospitalisation could be excluded, but left the final decision in this regard “to the wisdom of the Division Bench”.
On the habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji’s wife Megala, Justice Karthikeyan ruled that such a petition is maintainable only in extraordinary cases. In the current situation, the judge said, the case was “not exceptional”, thereby deeming the petition “unmaintainable”.
In the Division Bench’s split verdict on July 4, Justices Banu and Chakravarthy differed on the legality of Balaji’s arrest. While Justice Banu maintained the plea was viable and denied ED’s authority to seek police custody under PMLA, Justice Chakravarthy stood by his view that a habeas corpus plea is dismissible after a remand order.
In his decision, Justice Chakravarthy had referred to several Supreme Court verdicts, asserting that a habeas corpus petition could be entertained only in cases of absolute illegality, lack of jurisdiction, total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, or wholesale disregard to fundamental rights. The judge observed that there was no such exceptional circumstance in the present case.
The charges against Balaji pertained to his tenure as Transport Minister between 2011 and 2015, during the AIADMK regime. The case was taken up by the ED after the DMK came to power in Tamil Nadu.
The case had come up before the Madras HC after Balaji’s wife filed the habeas corpus petition, alleging violations of fundamental and statutory rights and improper conduct during the arrest. She claimed the remand order was mechanically passed, making the habeas corpus plea maintainable. Additionally, she cited alleged breaches of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, PMLA, and the Constitution of India.
The ED countered her arguments, clarifying the distinction between the power to arrest under PMLA and CrPC. They said a pre-arrest notice was only required when the ED did not intend to arrest, and the law only necessitated the reasons for arrest to be furnished “as soon as possible”.
