NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to expunge its earlier remarks against former minister Senthil Balaji and said that it would not change even a single word or even “touch a single word” of the previous judgments in cases concerning him seeking expunction of certain remarks made in the judgments related to the cash-for-jobs scam case.
“We will not expunge anything, we will not touch a single word. We are not touching the judgment. We will only clarify that the observations shall have no bearing on the trial. That’s a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence. Basic principles are always to be followed, there’s no question of entertaining any review,” said a two-judge bench of the top court, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Clarifying that these remarks in the verdict will not influence the trial in the cash-for-job scam case against Balaji at all, the SC said it would not “touch a single word” in the 2022 order or any judgement in the case as it deprecated the practice of filing pleas for modification of orders in the top court after retirement of judges who penned such verdicts.
“This practice of filing an application after the judges who passed the order or judgement was as bad as forum shopping. These applications can be dismissed on this ground alone,” the court said.
Former minister Senthil Balaji had knocked the doors of the top court on July 10, seeking to expunge certain remarks in its September 8, 2022, order restoring criminal complaints against him in the cash-for-jobs scam. In the order, the SC had set aside the Madras High Court order quashing complaints against the former minister on the basis of settlement between parties.
The SC said there was evidence of corrupt practices to secure employment in the Transport Corporation during Balaji’s tenure as minister in the TN government (during 2011-2015) and set aside the HC order, saying that serious offences like corruption cannot be quashed merely on the basis of offer to refund. Balaji, in his application, said the observations made in the verdict (September 2022) could influence the trial court in the case and affect his right to fair trial.