NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear on Wednesday a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate against a Madras High Court ordero that allowed arrested minister V Senthil Balaji to be treated at a private hospital. The HC had allowed the minister, who was under treatment at Omandurar government hospital, to be shifted to Kauvery Hospital for surgery.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice M M Sundresh seeking an urgent hearing. The agency has also challenged the order of the Chennai sessions court that gave ED eight-day custody of the minister with certain conditions.
The high court had passed the order based on a habeas corpus petition filed by plea filed by the minister's wife, Mekala. Senthil Balaji, accused in a money laundering case related to a cash-for-jobs scam, was arrested by the ED last Wednesday after the agency questioned him for nearly 18 hours over the alleged scam during his tenure as transport minister in the AIADMK government between 2011-2016.
Tushar Mehta told the SC bench that the habeas corpus plea was not maintainable, and the HC order transferring Balaji to a private hospital was unjustified as SC’s ruling in CBI v Anupam J Kulkarni barred investigating agency from getting custody of an accused beyond a period of 15 days from the arrest date.
HC has erred, says ED in SC plea against Balaji’s hospital shift
“The judgment of your lordships says that once a person is remanded to custody, habeas corpus does not lie. It also says that the validity of detention will have to be seen at the time of the returnable date. He is a senior minister, quite an influential fellow. Madras High Court has entertained a habeas corpus petition after we arrested the accused and he is remanded to custody. Now the accused is in hospital and our 15 days start as per the judgment in Kulkarni. Petition is not maintainable, that is our case,” Mehta said.
Considering Mehta’s contention, the bench said, “If we allow this in interlocutory order, there would be no end.” In an attempt to further convince the bench, Mehta said, “The HC order is a basis of the remand order which says you can interrogate him only without disturbing his health and with the doctor’s advice which renders the interrogation meaningless.”
While allowing his transfer to the private facility, Justices Nisha Banu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras HC, in their June 15 order, allowed the ED to constitute its own panel of doctors to examine the minister and visit him in the private hospital to monitor his health. The court had clarified that the duration of Balaji’s hospital stay would be excluded while calculating the ED’s plea for custodial interrogation. While granting ED eight-day custody, the local court had clarified that he shall be interrogated taking into consideration his ailments and treatment given to him at the hospital after obtaining a necessary opinion from the team of doctors.
Challenging the HC order, the ED in its plea in the SC argued that the HC had erred in entertaining the habeas corpus plea since a judicial order was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction for remanding Balaji to custody. The plea said, “Having allowed shifting of the arrestee to a private hospital, the HC has erred in not entertaining the plea of the investigating agency of excluding the period of treatment to be undergone in the private hospital from the period of custody as interrogation and investigation would be rendered meaningless while the arrestee is in hospital.”
Additionally, the probe agency, in its plea challenging the local court’s order, said the minister feigned illness immediately upon arrest and got himself admitted to hospital from the first day of remand effectively rendering the purpose of arrest and investigation otiose and meaningless. “It was only after arrest that the arrestee complained of illness and chose to be hospitalised, there is, therefore, a reasonable apprehension that he is feigning illness,” the ED said.
A petition was filed in the Madras HC against Senthil Balaji for continuing as minister without portfolio. Petitioner ML Ravi, president of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, said the notification with regard to Balaji’s continuation as minister is invalid as he was under judicial custody on the date. His continuation as minister is also against the pleasure and discretion of the governor as contemplated in the Constitution.
Saying that Article 164 (2) envisages collective responsibility of the Legislative Assembly of the State, the petitioner noted that the notification impugned is against the collective responsibility so far as the functioning of Senthil Balaji is concerned. He also sought the court to quash the June 16, 2023, press release.