Power and freedom: On the Senthilbalaji case

The Supreme Court’s remark on April 23, asking Tamil Nadu Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise V. Senthilbalaji, who has been out on bail since September 2024 in an alleged money laundering case, to choose between his post and freedom was expected. In the last four months, the Court used strong language against the Minister on more than one occasion. Last December, the Court expressed its objection to the return of Mr. Senthilbalaji to the Cabinet a few days after it granted him bail. On March 24, it took a dim view of the lack of response from him to its question raised on February 12 over his continuance as Minister. Mr. Senthilbalaji, in all likelihood, would have anticipated what the Court said now. That two senior advocates, Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi, and an advocate for the Minister, had to persuade a Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan not to issue an interim order till Monday (April 29) is no common event in any court of law, let alone the Supreme Court. The observations of the Bench that it had been a “mistake” in granting him bail and that the conduct of the Minister was “dishonest,” and the statement of Justice Oka to Mr. Sibal that “you [Mr. Senthilbalaji] will ensure that no witness comes to the box”, reflect concerns that a Minister could tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. Clearly, Mr. Senthilbalaji would have done himself a favour by not returning to the Cabinet.

Even now, it is not too late for him to resign. If he does not, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin would be forced to act against him. What is at stake is not just the continuance of a Minister, but propriety. After all, the Court had granted Mr. Senthilbalaji bail not on merits, but on the ground that he had undergone an incarceration of one year as an under trial in the case. When it had not given him a clean chit in the first instance, his re-induction into the Cabinet has naturally become a subject matter before the Court, regardless of the correctness or otherwise of the Minister’s claim that “there is not even a whisper of violation of any bail condition.” On September 28, 2024, at the time when he was granted bail, The Hindu had pointed out that “the cause of justice for the victims of the job scandal and a fair trial for the accused would be served well if Mr. Stalin avoids inducting Mr. Senthilbalaji again in his Cabinet until he is cleared of the charges.” The point still holds. Mr. Senthilbalaji should not risk the ignominy of getting dropped from the Cabinet on the recommendation of the Chief Minister.