NEW DELHI: A defiant V Senthil Balaji , who was reappointed as minister in the M K Stalin govt after being released on bail, has told Supreme Court that he could continue to be part of the Tamil Nadu cabinet because "he enjoys popular mandate and he cannot be chastised for seeking a political office in pursuance of the popular mandate".
Responding to the court's query on how he could take charge of a ministry immediately after being granted bail as his holding the post could influence witnesses, Balaji, who is facing serious corruption charges , asserted that courts could not read into the Constitution a disqualification in appointment of a minister.
In an affidavit, the TN minister said he had been scrupulously following bail conditions fixed by the court and no case was made out to recall the order granting him bail. Opposing the contention that his continuation as minister may influence witnesses in the case, he said, "The entirety of criminal prosecution (state as well as by ED) came to be instituted against Respondent No.2 (him) while he was a minister in power and he even suffered adverse judicial orders. If the alleged influence of the minister was so strong, the prosecution would not have come to be launched and continued against him."
The case takes on significance as ministers in many other govts, including former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, held on to their positions during the period they were in jail. Balaji's affidavit further said, "Even this court was acutely aware of the magnitude of the scheduled offence trials, and that they would take many years to conclude, and by its own estimation, at the very least three to four years or even more. Therefore, any exercise to modify the bail conditions would necessarily have to consider that Respondent No.2 enjoys popular mandate and he cannot be chastised for seeking a political office in pursuance of the popular mandate. This would not only be contrary to the popular mandate but would also be violative of his cherished right under Article 21 of the Constitution to participate in public life."
Balaji said there was not even a whisper of violation of any bail condition meriting interference by the court and the contention of influencing witnesses was specifically argued before and addressed by the SC in its judgment while granting him bail. He said he had been appearing before the trial court on every date after his release on regular bail and there was no ground whatsoever to suggest that he was either delaying the ED trial or attempting to influence any witnesses.
Responding to the court's query on how he could take charge of a ministry immediately after being granted bail as his holding the post could influence witnesses, Balaji, who is facing serious corruption charges , asserted that courts could not read into the Constitution a disqualification in appointment of a minister.
In an affidavit, the TN minister said he had been scrupulously following bail conditions fixed by the court and no case was made out to recall the order granting him bail. Opposing the contention that his continuation as minister may influence witnesses in the case, he said, "The entirety of criminal prosecution (state as well as by ED) came to be instituted against Respondent No.2 (him) while he was a minister in power and he even suffered adverse judicial orders. If the alleged influence of the minister was so strong, the prosecution would not have come to be launched and continued against him."
The case takes on significance as ministers in many other govts, including former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, held on to their positions during the period they were in jail. Balaji's affidavit further said, "Even this court was acutely aware of the magnitude of the scheduled offence trials, and that they would take many years to conclude, and by its own estimation, at the very least three to four years or even more. Therefore, any exercise to modify the bail conditions would necessarily have to consider that Respondent No.2 enjoys popular mandate and he cannot be chastised for seeking a political office in pursuance of the popular mandate. This would not only be contrary to the popular mandate but would also be violative of his cherished right under Article 21 of the Constitution to participate in public life."
Balaji said there was not even a whisper of violation of any bail condition meriting interference by the court and the contention of influencing witnesses was specifically argued before and addressed by the SC in its judgment while granting him bail. He said he had been appearing before the trial court on every date after his release on regular bail and there was no ground whatsoever to suggest that he was either delaying the ED trial or attempting to influence any witnesses.
You may also like
Shanaya Kapoor's Friday morning is all about 'sunshine and coffee'
Susmita Sen's relative spotted selling clothes online. Who is actress Charu Asopa?
26/11 attacks shocked entire world; America supports India's pursuit of justice: US on Rana extradition
New method turns tumour-supporting cells into killers
Tributes Pour In for Senior Congress Leader Sooranad Rajasekharan After His Passing
