Supreme Court to hear Senthil Balaji's plea against Madras High Court order on July 21

A bench of Justices J Nisha Bhanu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy had on July 4 delivered a split verdict on the legality.

FILE: Senthil Balaji.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will hear on July 21, TN Minister Thiru Senthil Balaji and his wife’s plea against Madras High Court’s order regarding the legality of his arrest.

Balaji’s petition was mentioned by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud. Urging the bench to list the plea, Sibal said, “There was a difference of opinion in Madras HC. Requesting the matter to be heard as it may become infructuous if he is taken into police custody. One Bench is already dealing with it.”

While the CJI was inclined to list the matter tomorrow, SG while informing the court regarding an appeal filed by ED requested to list the matter on Monday.

“We have also filed an appeal. After the two judges differed, the third judge concurred. The matter is now posted for the division bench for a date. Nothing will happen,” Mehta said.

Taking into consideration the minister’s apprehension of being taken into custody, the CJI posted the matter for Friday.

“The apprehension is that he will be taken in custody now. We’ll keep it tomorrow,” the CJI said.

Balaji has been in Enforcement Directorate (EDs) custody under PMLA, since 2002 with regards to the cash for job scam. Balaji has challenged the orders dated July 4 and July 14 which were delivered by a bench of two judges and a single judge respectively. Apart from Balaji, his wife Megala has also challenged HCs orders.

A bench of Justices J Nisha Bhanu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy had on July 4 delivered a split verdict on the legality. While Justice Bhanu had ruled that the ED is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the PMLA and had directed for forthwith release of the minister while terming his custody as “illegal” had ordered for the minister’s release forthwith, Justice Chakravarthy had held that there were no illegalities in the arrest procedure and remand.

Against the backdrop of conflicting orders, the matter was referred to a third judge Justice CV Karthikeyan. While putting an end to the conflicting opinions on July 14, Justice Karthikeyan had said that the central agency was entitled to seek the minister’s custody. Additionally, he had also ruled that although the habeas corpus petition was maintainable after a court passed a judicial order of remand only in exceptional circumstances, he said that the present case did not attract any exceptional circumstance.

Aligning with the view of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, the single judge had said, “Legality of the registration of ECIR has never been questioned. Once that legality has not been questioned, the consequent investigation or enquiry cannot also be questioned because a right is vested to so enquire or to so investigate into the offence of money laundering also, quite apart from detecting the trial of the proceeds of crime. Among other powers vested, the respondents had the power to search, seize, to arrest.

Once an arrest has been initiated and it is stated by the respondents that the detenue/accused had refused to receive the copy of the memo of arrest and also the ground of arrest but it was informed to the brother and the petitioner herein, a reasonable strong presumption can be drawn that efforts had been taken to so inform the grounds of arrest. Therefore, once an arrest is legal, remand is legal. A Habeas Corpus Petition would never lie.”