Supreme Court Allows V Senthil Balaji To Withdraw Plea In ‘Cash-For-Jobs’ Case

Former Tamil Nadu minister, V Senthil Balaji, presently facing prosecution under money laundering charges linked to the ‘cash-for-jobs’ scam, was permitted by the Supreme Court on Monday to withdraw his petition seeking deletion of critical judicial remarks from a previous bail order.

The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.

Meanwhile, a notice was issued to the Tamil Nadu government on a separate plea.

Furthermore, seeking a transfer of the trial to Delhi.

The state has been asked to file its response within two weeks.

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant observed that the comments made by the bench in the earlier order reflected the ‘state of mind of the court’ and could not be termed right or wrong.

He questioned the timing of Balaji’s plea, asking why it was filed only after the retirement of Justice Abhay Oka.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised the move, calling it an ‘unpleasant step in bad taste.’

Court Seeks State Reply

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Balaji, argued that the plea should not be seen as an attempt to suggest the former minister was unfit to hold office.

“Many ministers across the country face legal proceedings. How many of them resign?” he asked.

On the transfer petition, Tamil Nadu government counsel Amit Anand Tiwari opposed moving the case to Delhi.

Furthermore, arguing that most witnesses were based in Tamil Nadu and a Delhi trial would be impractical. “A transfer would imply distrust in the state’s investigation,” he said.

Justice Surya Kant, however, remarked that the court could still consider the matter.

Balaji’s plea had sought the deletion of certain observations made in the Supreme Court’s 8 September 2022 judgment.

The judgment claimed they could prejudice his ongoing trial and violate his right to a fair hearing under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The 2022 verdict had sharply criticised the investigation, stating that “even a novice in criminal law would not exclude offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act from the final report.”

The court had questioned the investigating officer’s intent, remarking that “he wanted to wage war, but was afraid to wound.”

Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply On Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Under NSA