Supreme Court declines ED’s plea to bar Senthilbalaji from holding any office till completion of trial

DMK MLA V. Senthilbalaji. File
| Photo Credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28, 2025) did not entertain a plea by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to bar Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MLA V. Senthilbalaji from holding any ministerial or other “positions of power” in Tamil Nadu till the trial in a money-laundering case linked to a cash-for-jobs ‘scam’ was completed.

The Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and A.G. Masih found “no basis in the apprehension” of the ED and the complainant, K. Vidhya Kumar, that Mr. Senthilbalaji would again return to a position of power in the State “in a month”.

The court took on record a press release issued by the Tamil Nadu Governor stating that Mr. Senthilbalaji’s resignation had been accepted by the Raj Bhavan. The Supreme Court had last week given Mr. Senthilbalaji an ultimatum to either choose between his post or his freedom.

Mr. Senthilbalaji was appointed as the Tamil Nadu Minister of Electricity, Prohibition and Excise on September 29, 2024, just two days after the apex court championed his right to personal liberty to grant him bail in the money laundering case on the ground that he had spent 15 months in prison as an undertrial.

The ED had moved the apex court against the appointment, seeking a recall of the September 26 bail order. On December 2, the court decided to examine the narrow aspect of Mr. Senthilbalaji’s appointment as Cabinet Minister and its impact on witnesses. The court had, however, refused to interfere with the bail.

Also read | I have a right to participate in public life: Senthilbalaji

On Monday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the ED, voiced the apprehension that Mr. Senthilbalaji may again try for a shot at ministership or “some other position of power” in the State. He should be barred from assuming any position of power till the trial was concluded, the top law officer urged the court. “Otherwise, what would happen to the trial if he comes back to power after the next elections in 2026?” Mr. Mehta asked.

Objecting, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi, along with advocate Ram Shanker, appearing for Mr. Senthilbalaji, replied with a counter-question: “What would happen to my client if you (the ED) extend the trial by another 15 years? Should he be out of politics for 15 years then?”

Mr. Sibal pointed out that even the trial in the predicate offences, which include corruption, was in its nascent stage. There were more than 2,200 accused persons and over 500 witnesses. The senior lawyer pointed out that the trial in the money laundering case would only commence after the successful completion of the trial in the predicate offences.

Mr. Mehta said the State of Tamil Nadu was prosecuting the predicate offences. He reasoned that a bar on Mr. Senthilbalaji from taking up any ministership or other powerful position would prod the State to expedite the completion of the predicate trial, which would in turn pave the way for the ED to commence the trial in the money laundering case.

The Solicitor General said Mr. Senthilbalaji had “substantial control over the State”. He had been a Minister without portfolio while in prison. He was deliberately delaying the predicate trial. “If there is no bar on him from assuming any powerful position, the trial into the predicate offences will never be over. Whereas, on the other hand, a bar would only work to expedite the trial,” Mr. Mehta argued.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for Mr. Vidhya Kumar, suggested that Mr. Senthilbalaji must be ordered to leave Tamil Nadu during the trial.

Also read | Do you intend to continue as Minister, Supreme Court asks Senthilbalaji

“There have been instances when senior Ministers have been asked to leave their native State while the trial was on against them. There have also been occasions when the apex court had ordered sitting Chief Ministers to not ‘touch’ any official files while he was accused in a case,” Mr. Sankaranaraynan submitted.

Justice Oka said that if the ED had so many apprehensions, it must file a separate application to cancel the bail.

“That occasion will arise in a month. Nobody can live without power after a month,” Mr. Mehta responded. He said the ED did not want to be “laughing stock” if Mr. Senthilbalaji managed to get appointed to a high office for a second time.