In a gripping legal battle that unfolded over an extraordinary 16-hour hearing, the Madras High Court witnessed an intense clash of legal prowess between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi.
The focal point of this high-stakes showdown revolved around the contentious arrest of V Senthil Balaji, the esteemed power and excise minister of Tamil Nadu. The arrest has ignited a heated debate regarding the powers and jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The case stems from the ED’s arrest of Balaji on June 14 following an exhaustive 18-hour search of his official residence and office in Chennai. The arrest was linked to an alleged job scam. Shortly after his midnight arrest, Balaji experienced chest pain, necessitating his urgent transfer to a city hospital. Subsequent medical examinations revealed a critical heart condition, leading to immediate bypass surgery.
Balaji chose to undergo surgery at a private hospital in Chennai, his preferred medical facility. However, the authenticity of the minister’s health condition was challenged by the ED at the Supreme Court, as they sought custody and objected to Balaji’s surgery at the private hospital.
Amidst the courtroom drama, Mehta, representing the ED, and Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of Balaji’s wife, presented their respective arguments before a division bench consisting of Justices J Nisha Banu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy over two consecutive days.
At the heart of the case was the crucial question of whether the ED had the authority to arrest an individual without a pre-arrest notice, and subsequently seek custody of the arrested person. Mehta staunchly defended the agency’s position, asserting that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) bestowed upon the ED comprehensive powers to arrest anyone if deemed punishable under the Act.
The outcome of this captivating legal battle will significantly shape the ongoing discourse surrounding Balaji’s arrest and the extent of the ED’s jurisdiction. Stay tuned for further updates as this courtroom saga continues to unfold.
The Solicitor General argued that the habeas corpus petition is not maintainable as it was filed after the order for remand. However, Elango cited previous Supreme Court orders to support the maintainability of the plea and stressed that, as per the law, custodial interrogation cannot continue beyond 15 days of arrest.
The outcome of this hearing will be closely watched, as it has far-reaching implications for the legality of the minister’s arrest and subsequent proceedings. Stay tuned for further updates on this unfolding legal battle.
