The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested the Madras high court chief justice to pave the way for speedy disposal of a case over the legality of arrest and custodial interrogation of DMK minister V Senthil Balaji in connection with a money laundering case, hours after a two-judge bench in the high court delivered a split verdict in the matter.
A bench, headed by justice Surya Kant, took note of the fact that after the split verdict by the HC division bench, the habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji’s wife challenging her husband’s arrest will have to go to a third judge for a decision by majority.
Thus, the bench that also comprised justice Dipankar Datta, requested the chief justice of the high court to place the matter before the third judge “at the earliest”.
“We further request the assigned bench to decide the legal issues as mentioned as early as possible. It goes without saying that pendency of these petitions before this Court will have no bearing on the case before the high court,” the bench said in its order.
Balaji, who held the electricity, excise and prohibition portfolios, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 14 for allegations that date back to 2014 when he was transport minister in the then AIADMK government. He had joined the DMK in 2018.
On the day of his arrest, Balaji dramatically collapsed, and later underwent a beating heart coronary artery bypass surgery in a Chennai hospital on June 21 and has been hospitalised since. On Wednesday, his judicial custody was extended by a trial court until July 12 as the Madras high court was dealing with his wife’s habeas corpus plea.
Balaji has been at the centre of the latest row between Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi and the DMK government led by Stalin. The face-off between the two intensified last week with the governor dismissing Balaji from the council of ministers – a decision that Ravi sought to back down from hours later. Late on Thursday, the governor wrote to Stalin again, conveying that the decision to dismiss Balaji “may be kept in abeyance until further communication” since he is approaching the attorney general for a legal opinion following Union home minister Amit Shah’s advice. To be sure, Stalin responded to Ravi’s letters on June 30, stating Ravi’s “unconstitutional “communication dismissing a minister without his advice is “void ab initio and non-est in law”.
The top court is currently seized of two petitions moved by ED. The first petition is against the June 15 high court order that allowed the shifting of the minister from a city government hospital to a private facility of his choice after Balaji’s wife moved a habeas corpus petition, disputing the legality of his arrest. ED, in its plea before the Supreme Court, argued that challenge the minister’s arrest was not maintainable after he was remanded to ED’s custody by a trial court of competent jurisdiction.
ED’s second petition challenges the Chennai sessions court order of June 16, restricting ED’s interrogation at the hospital after obtaining permission from the team of doctors treating Balaji. The federal agency has implored the top court to issue an order that the period of Balaji’s stay in hospital for should be excluded from the 15-day period of ED’s custodial interrogation.
Also Read:BJP distances itself from governor amid Balaji row
On June 21, the Supreme Court had turned down ED’s plea to pass an order at this stage regarding Balaji’s custodial interrogation, asking the agency to go back to the Madras HC where the habeas corpus petition was already pending. It had, however, agreed to keep the petitions pending in the top court for the time being.
On Tuesday morning, a two-judge bench of the Madras HC delivered a split ruling – with one judge declaring that the habeas corpus was maintainable and thus, ED was not entitled to custodial interrogation, while another dismissed the habeas corpus plea. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was referred to the HC chief justice for placing it before a third judge.
When the matter was taken up in the Supreme Court hours later, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, arguing for ED, apprised the bench of the split verdict, urging the Court to finally decide the matter by itself instead of waiting for a decision by the third judge.
“These are neat questions of law. First, whether a habeas corpus will lie after an order of remand. And second, whether the 15-day remand period can be excluded if an accused gets hospitalised. Rather than the matter going to a third single judge, decide it here,” Mehta said.
The S-G’s submissions were vociferously opposed by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Balaji and his wife. “How can this request be ever entertained that you bring it to the Supreme Court after bypassing the high court which it yet to decide? In what circumstances, this CVurt will now say bring it to this Court? Such a request cannot be entertained in law,” Sibal contended.
Responding, the bench said that it would rather request the HC chief justice to place the matter before a third judge at the earliest. “And of course, we will say let it be decided at the earliest. Ultimately, it’s a question of law and we will decide it. But we will want to have the benefit of the views of the third judge too,” added the bench, fixing the next hearing on July 24.
