Subscribe
Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court, on Friday, July 31, granted interim protection from arrest to former Tamil Nadu minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MLA V Senthil Balaji in a Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) case alleging large-scale corruption in the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed Senthil Balaji's arrest while hearing his appeal against the Madras High Court's order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea.
The interim protection is subject to Senthil Balaji cooperating with the investigation, depositing his passport with the investigating officer, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The Supreme Court's order came a day after senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi sought an urgent hearing, citing the possibility of imminent coercive action following the Madras High Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail.
On July 30, the Madras High Court dismissed Senthil Balaji's anticipatory bail plea, observing that the allegations involved large-scale corruption and substantial loss to the public exchequer, making custodial interrogation necessary.
The Supreme Court also issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government and observed that it could modify the interim order if the State established the need for custodial interrogation during the course of the proceedings.
Appearing for Senthil Balaji, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari argued that the FIR was registered after the change in the political dispensation in Tamil Nadu and was largely based on material that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had already placed before the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings.
Calling it a "strange case", Sibal submitted that the FIR, registered on July 28, relied on an affidavit previously filed by the ED before the Supreme Court.
The case stems from an FIR registered by the DVAC on July 28, alleging large-scale irregularities in TASMAC's functioning between 2021 and 2025, when Senthil Balaji held the Electricity and Prohibition and Excise portfolios.
According to the FIR, Senthil Balaji allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with six others, including private individuals, distillery and brewery companies, transport firms, bottling companies, and unidentified TASMAC officials.
The prosecution has alleged criminal breach of trust, preparation of false records, and misappropriation of funds.
Sibal further argued that the allegations pertained to the period between 2021 and 2025 and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the case was primarily based on documentary evidence.
The Bench questioned the State on why custodial interrogation was required in a case that appeared to rest largely on documentary evidence. During the hearing, the court also noted that Senthil Balaji was no longer a minister.
Responding for the State, senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar argued that Senthil Balaji had remained in power during the period covered by the allegations and had prevented complaints from being pursued.
The State maintained that although Senthil Balaji was no longer a minister, he continued to wield influence and could interfere with the investigation. It also pointed to his antecedents, including adverse observations made by the Supreme Court in the cash-for-jobs case, to oppose anticipatory bail.
However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that such concerns could be addressed by imposing appropriate safeguards.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also remarked that the investigation should proceed independently and that if Senthil Balaji was found guilty, he would face the consequences.
