The Enforcement Directorate (ED) defended the arrest of Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji on corruption charges related to the 'cash for jobs' scam case before the Madras High Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, stated that there was no illegality in the arrest as Balaji had refused to cooperate with the investigation. According to Mehta, the ED had known from the beginning of its probe that Balaji would need to be arrested. Therefore, there was no requirement to serve him any prior notice under Article 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The arguments were in response to the claims made by Balaji's wife, S Megala, and Senior Advocate NR Elango, who contended that Balaji's arrest and subsequent remand were illegal since he had not been served a notice under Section 41A CrPC and had not been informed of the grounds for his arrest.
Solicitor General Mehta cited Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which allows authorities to arrest individuals if there are reasonable grounds to believe they are guilty of an offense under the Act. He pointed out that under this provision, the grounds of arrest need to be informed as soon as possible, not necessarily immediately.
Mehta further explained that the ED had informed Balaji of the grounds of his arrest within 24 hours, both directly and through the sessions court during his remand.
Regarding the plea challenging the arrest, Mehta argued that it was not maintainable since the petitioner had not challenged the remand order, which authorized the ED to interrogate Balaji. He stated that the arguments presented were merely an attempt to give the impression that the remand order had been challenged.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Balaji, countered Mehta's arguments, asserting that the ED's arguments about the challenge to the remand order were incorrect. Rohatgi claimed that at the time the petition was filed, the lower court had not yet permitted Balaji's custodial interrogation.
Rohatgi referred to the judgment in Gautam Navlakha's case, where the Supreme Court had held that a habeas corpus petition was acceptable if a remand order was illegal or had been passed without due consideration.
Rohatgi also contested the ED's request to exclude the period Balaji spent in hospitals following his arrest from the period of his custody, stating that it lacked legal basis.
He urged the court to grant Balaji bail if it found merit in his arguments.
All parties concluded their arguments, and the Bench instructed them to submit their written submissions by the following day.
Balaji was arrested by the ED in connection with a money laundering case stemming from his tenure as the transport minister in the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government from 2011 to 2015.
The arrest came after the Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Madras High Court, which had ordered the state police to conduct a new investigation into the cash-for-jobs scam case. Additionally, the apex court granted permission to the ED to continue its probe.
TAGS: Enforcement Directorate (ED) Madras High Court Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji corruption cash for jobs scam Solicitor General Tushar Mehta arrest illegality Article 41A Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cooperation notice Prevention of Money Laundering Act grounds of arrest remand S Megala NR Elango session court challenge custody Mukul Rohatgi Gautam Navlakha's case habeas corpus money laundering All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Supreme Court investigation.
