Supreme Court Defers Hearing on ED's Petitions in Tamil Nadu Minister's Medical Treatment Case

| 21 June 2023

In a setback for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Supreme Court has deferred the hearing in the financial probe agency's petitions against the Madras High Court order entertaining a habeas corpus petition filed by Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji’s wife. The Madras High Court had allowed Balaji to be shifted to a private hospital for medical treatment, excluding the period of his hospitalization from the 15-day ED remand period.

The apex court has instructed the ED to argue its case first before the Madras High Court regarding the exclusion of the hospitalization period from the remand period. However, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh, refrained from considering the plea, stating that the High Court was already examining the matter.

The ED expressed its frustration with the situation, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stating, "The trial court says that it will not consider it since the High Court is examining. The Supreme Court also says it will not examine as the High Court is examining. This way we are left remediless."

Justice Suryakant, refusing to interfere, emphasized that the High Court must adhere to judicial principles. However, he also assured that if any errors were found in the High Court's decision, they would be examined.

Senior advocate NK Kaul, representing Senthil Balaji, highlighted his client's health condition, stating that he had undergone cardiac surgery due to four blockages. Kaul asserted that these blockages were not self-induced.

Senthil Balaji, the former Tamil Nadu Electricity and Prohibition and Excise Minister, was arrested by the ED on June 14 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with an alleged cash-for-jobs scam that took place during his tenure as the transport minister in an AIADMK government led by the late J Jayalalithaa.

In its plea before the Supreme Court, the ED argued that the High Court erred in entertaining the habeas corpus petition, claiming it was not maintainable after a judicial order had already remanded the accused to the custody of the anti-money laundering agency. The ED stated, "The validity of an arrest cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus petition once the person arrested has been validly remanded to custody. The high court erred in entertaining the habeas corpus petition when Senthil Balaji was duly remanded to custody by the Special Court. The said petition was liable to be dismissed at the outset for being not maintainable."

The ED further contended that the order to shift Balaji to a private hospital, without considering the ED's request for an independent and impartial medical opinion on his condition, was untenable. The Madras High Court had granted permission for Balaji's transfer from a government hospital to a private facility on June 15. The court also issued a notice to the ED regarding the "illegal" arrest of Balaji and scheduled the matter for further hearing on June 22.

Additionally, the high court specified that Balaji would remain in judicial custody while allowing the probe agency to have its own team of doctors examine the minister.

The deferral of the hearing by the Supreme Court and the decision to let the Madras High Court examine the matter first have added to the complexity of the case. The ED's concerns regarding the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition and the exclusion of the hospitalization period from the remand period will now need to be addressed before the Madras High Court. As the legal battle continues, the fate of Senthil Balaji and the outcome of the allegations against him remain uncertain.