Madras High Court Justice CV Karthikeyan made this ruling following V Senthil Balaji’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) last month for money laundering charges. Two judges of Madras High Court previously had different opinions about how to proceed in his case.
Justice Karthikeyan agreed with Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy’s earlier opinion, noting that the ED was within its rights to seek custody of Balaji. If investigation required it, custody must be granted as a matter of right; no accused may impede an inquiry; Balaji had refused to accept grounds of arrest due to being provided with them in violation of court rule which the court considered false.
Justice Karthikeyan ordered the Registry to present this matter before Chief Justice’s bench for final consideration, taking his opinion into account. Justice Karthikeyan made reference to an earlier Supreme Court ruling regarding Balaji vs Karthik Desai wherein they declined discharge because it violated justice, fair play and good conscience – key fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence which had been compromised due to compromise between Balaji and complainant, leading to proceedings being initiated under ED law. Justice Karthikeyan felt this observation relevant since it led directly to proceedings being initiated against Balaji in that case v Karthik Desai earlier this year. The judge made reference to another Supreme Court ruling regarding Balaji v Karthik Desai whereby they declined discharge due to compromise between accused parties involved, commenting upon compromise between accused party and complainant involved compromised justice, fair play good conscience fundamental principles criminal law law. Justice Karthikeyan found relevant because it led directly led directly led him being sued under investigation in cash for jobs scam earlier this year by this court ruling itself being brought subsequently instituted before this court case being initiated as opposed to previously brought forward for trial proceeding before this court case being initiated under investigation (ED proceedings being initiated) earlier.
The judge laid out the powers granted to ED and decided that Balaji’s release should be denied. While acknowledging his wife’s claim that he wasn’t informed of the grounds for his arrest – violating his constitutional rights – however, the judge pointed out ED’s contention that he engaged in disruptive behaviour such as tantrums and refused to sign his Memo of Grounds of Arrest Memo.
Balaji, who served as Transport Minister in the AIADMK government from 2011 to 2015, was arrested due to allegations of irregularities involving bus conductors, drivers and junior engineers at the State transport department. Following being remanded by a sessions court and placed under judicial custody initially but later transferred for surgery at a private hospital.
After last month’s split verdict by the High Court division bench regarding habeas corpus pleas and enforcement directorate powers, Justice Karthikeyan heard and delivered his judgment today. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Balaji’s wife while Tushar Mehta from Solicitor General was represented by Senior Advocate AR L Sundaresan for Enforcement Directorate.
