NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (EDs) custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with regards to the cash for job scam has approached Supreme Court against Madras High Court’s order regarding the legality of his arrest.
Balaji has challenged the orders dated July 4 and July 14 which were delivered by a bench of two judges and a single judge respectively. Apart from Balaji, his wife Megala has also challenged the High Court's orders.
A bench of Justices J Nisha Bhanu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy had on July 4 delivered a spilt verdict on the legality. While Justice Bhanu had ruled that the ED is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the PMLA and had directed for forthwith release of the minister while terming his custody as “illegal” had ordered for the minister’s release forthwith, Justice Chakravarthy had held that there were no illegalities in the arrest procedure and remand.
Against the backdrop of conflicting orders, the matter was referred to a third judge Justice CV Karthikeyan. While putting an end to the conflicting opinions on July 14, Justice Karthikeyan had said that the central agency was entitled to seek the minister’s custody. Additionally, he had also ruled that although habeas corpus petition was maintainable after a court passing a judicial order of remand only in exceptional circumstances, he said that the present case did not attract any exceptional circumstance.
Aligning with the view of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, the single judge had said, “Legality of the registration of ECIR has never been questioned. Once that legality has not been questioned, the consequent investigation or enquiry cannot also be questioned because a right is vested to so enquire or to so investigate into the offence of money laundering also, quite apart from detecting the trial of the proceeds of crime. Among other powers are vested, the respondents had the power to search, to seize, to arrest.
Once an arrest has been initiated and it is stated by the respondents that the detenue/accused had refused to receive the copy of the memo of arrest and also the ground of arrest but it was informed to the brother and the petitioner herein, a reasonable strong presumption can be drawn that efforts had been taken to so inform the grounds of arrest. Therefore, once arrest is legal, remand is legal. A Habeas Corpus Petition would never lie.”