'Misconceived' : Supreme Court Rejects Senthil Balaji's Plea Against Order Which Forced His Resignation As Minister

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain ex-Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji's plea seeking expunction of the remarks made by the Court which forced him to resign as a Minister.

In April, a bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih had strongly criticised Balaji for assuming charge as Minister soon after he was granted bail in the money laundering case. The bench led by Justice Oka orally warned that Balaji's bail will be cancelled if he did not resign. Choose between "post" and "freedom", Justice Oka orally said, following which Balaji resigned. Taking note of the resignation, the Court disposed of the applications seeking recall of the bail.

Later, the present miscellaneous application seeking expunction of remarks made by the Court was filed.

Today, at the outset, the bench asked why the application was filed after the retirement of Justice Oka. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also highlighted the same, commenting that the belated filing was not in "good taste" and the delay was "calculated".

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Balaji, said that the Court's oral remarks were not reflected in the order. The bench said that the order was not an injunction against becoming Minister but a warning that his bail would be cancelled if he continued in the post as it had the potential to influence witnesses.

"Court has not prevented you from becoming minister...but the day you become Minister and we find you influence witness, we will recall the bail order...we can't modify the order in piecemeal", said Justice Kant. "We don't read the order as an injunction on you becoming a minister", added Justice Bagchi.

Sibal submitted that if it was actually found that Balaji was influencing witnesses, his bail can be cancelled. "If it is found at any stage that I am indulging in influencing trial, the order may be recalled. Trial is yet to commence, there's no allegation that I have contacted anybody. I have fully cooperated."

The bench pointed out there were in fact such allegations against him. The bench also pointed out that bail was granted only on the ground of long incarceration. 

"This order should not be understood as a mandate that one cannot hold post while being prosecuted," Sibal submitted. 

Justice Kant noted that the bench led by Justice Oka took strong exception to Balaji taking up a ministerial post within 2 days of grant of bail. "Paras 4-6 are very significant. Court took very strong exception to your becoming Minister. Till you attain complete acquittal...if you want to become Minister, file application seeking permission" the judge commented.

"So many Ministers are being prosecuted, how many resign? Why should they resign?," Sibal asked. However, the bench was not inclined to entertain the submission. The bench also opined that if the application for expunction was to be heard on merits, Justice Masih ought to be part of the bench.

Ultimately, on behalf of Balaji, Sibal withdrew the application and the same was permitted by the bench. "We don't want to go into what was orally observed...no further clarification required, language is very clear. Your application is misconceived...if you want to withdraw, we will allow you to withdraw", said Justice Kant.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the party who had earlier sought the cancellation of Balaji's bail and pointed to the circumstances under which the April order was passed.

For context, the April order assailed by Balaji recorded as follows:

"The occasion for filing these Applications and for entertaining these Applications by the Court arose as within two days after this Court enlarged the second respondent on bail, he was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu.

An apprehension is expressed on behalf of the applicants that again the second respondent/appellant (V Senthil Balaji) will assume a position as a Minister or any other position of power. In the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Y. Balaji (supra) and in the light of the fact that the bail application made by the second respondent/appellant was entertained only on the ground he is no longer occupying a position of power, we do not think there is any basis for that apprehension."

The order also stated that the Court granted bail to him in September 2024 not on merits, but in order to prevent violation of his rights under Article 21. "The attention of this Court was invited to the decision of this Court in the case of Y. Balaji vs. Karthik Desai & Anr. indicating the role played by the second respondent as regards one of the predicate offences of influencing victims, while he was a Cabinet Minister in the Government of the Tamil Nadu. As the second bail application proceeded on the footing that he is no longer a Minister, this Court did not consider the said decision against the appellant", the order further observed.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Gopal S; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI Versus K. VIDHYA KUMAR AND ORS., MA 1185/2025 in MA 2454/2024 in Crl.A. No. 4011/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order