'If You Want To Become A Minister, File An Application Seeking Court's Permission', SC To DMK Leader Senthil Balaji
The top court refused to entertain an application moved by Senthil Balaji with regard to the order that forced him to resign as minister.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : October 6, 2025 at 4:32 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that if former Tamil Nadu minister and DMK strongman Senthil Balaji wants to become a minister, then he should file an application seeking permission of the court, which would be considered. Balaji was granted bail in the money laundering case in connection with the 'cash-for-jobs' scam.
On April 23, this year, the apex court had made it clear to Balaji that he was granted bail not on merits, rather on possible violation of Article 21 and cautioned him that bail could be cancelled if he did not resign, saying, “We are giving a choice: freedom or post? On April 27, Balaji resigned from the M.K. Stalin-led state cabinet.
Balaji, in a latest application, sought a clarification that a paragraph in the April order passed by a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka, who has since retired, did not amount to an order that he cannot become a minister during the pendency of the money laundering trial.
Today, the matter came up before a bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal represented Senthil Balaji before the bench, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Enforcement Directorate. The bench observed that the earlier order did not prevent Balaji from becoming a minister, as it only recorded a submission.
During the hearing today, Justice Kant observed that the court has not prevented Balaji from becoming a minister and of course, we might not be in a position to prevent him from becoming a minister, and “but the day you become a minister and we find that you have been earlier indulging in influencing the witnesses, yes, we will recall the bail”.
Sibal said if it is found at any stage that his client is indulging in such activities, lordships may recall that order and cancel his bail.
The bench said it cannot modify the order earlier passed by a bench led by Justice Oka. Sibal said he is not seeking modification of the order, and there cannot be an injunction that, while being prosecuted, he cannot hold a position of power.
Justice Bagchi said, “Mr Sibal, we do not read the order as an injunction on you from becoming a minister. However, you’re becoming a minister in our estimation and in light of these observations and other earlier orders, it will be a relevant consideration with regard to your continuation on bail."
Sibal said this cannot be read as an injunction against me for holding a position of power, and in the bail order, there was not a word regarding him being a minister. The bench said the atmosphere in the state is impacted by your accepting ministerial responsibilities, and added, “we have to ensure that a clear stream of justice is put”.
Sibal said no doubt and stressed that there was not a single allegation of influencing the witnesses against his client. Justice Kant, citing an earlier order, said there is a finding against Sibal’s client. Sibal said the trial is yet to commence, and there is no influence of anybody, and there is no allegation that his client has contacted anybody, and he has cooperated fully.
Sibal said that this order should not be understood that there is a mandate that a person who is undergoing any kind of prosecution is not entitled to hold power, and the previous bench, which passed the orders in the matter, has not said that he cannot hold a position of power, and stressed that is why he is seeking clarification and as matter of law such a mandate cannot be issued by the court.
“After the grant of bail, the court took very strong exception to you becoming a minister…till you earn a clean acquittal, you should not hold the public office….at any point of time say suppose you want to become a minister, then you probably file an application seek permission of the court, we will consider that”, observed the bench.
Sibal said that then your lordship is reading it as a mandate. The bench said it is better that Sibal should not press this application. Mehta said that before Sibal withdraws the application, would the court see some judicial orders passed in this matter, and added, “This is my specific case that this is an abuse of process of law”. Mehta said Balaji’s application should be dismissed with costs.
The bench declined to entertain an application moved by Balaji for a clarification with regard to the order that forced him to resign as minister in April this year.
Transfer of the trial out of Tamil Nadu
The apex court also sought a response on an application seeking the transfer of the trial against Balaji outside Tamil Nadu. The bench suggested that the trial could be transferred to Delhi. A counsel representing the prosecution said it may not be possible since all the witnesses are based in Tamil Nadu. However, the bench said witnesses could depose online if the trial were to be transferred outside Tamil Nadu.
Mehta said nothing is being done by the local police in the matter. At this juncture, senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, Tamil Nadu government counsel, vehemently opposed Mehta’s submissions, saying, “this unfair…” and added that it will not be possible to conclude the trial as all the witnesses are based in the state. Sibal said the accused are not parties. State’s counsel said if the trial is transferred, then it would look like there is no trust in the system.
The bench said that if the trial is transferred to any neutral place, the witnesses could depose online, and a dedicated court can take up the matter on a day-to-day basis.
“We are not passing any orders today. We are suggesting that such allegations against the state do not come…”, observed the bench, adding that it is only giving a suggestion today. Senior advocate A M Singhvi, also representing the Tamil Nadu government, said Of course, the state is concerned because they will say it is a biased state and there is no confidence in the state.
Justice Kant said, “in a particular state where the trials are there, witnesses are there, the atmosphere will always remain charged. Unfortunately for you, state, the Opposition will continue to accuse you, as delay happens on the part of the court…”. The bench asked the state’s counsel to seek instructions, to which the state’s counsel agreed.
The apex court had granted bail to Balaji in September 2024 in a money laundering case. It was based on an understanding that Balaji was no longer a minister after he had resigned from the post.
However, Balaji was later reinstated as minister, and subsequently an application was moved before the apex court to recall his bail. Balaji then resigned as minister for the second time after the top court made strong observations against him on April 23.
Also Read
