A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday left it to the Supreme Court to decide when V Senthilbalaji, the Tamil Nadu minister without portfolio, shall be subjected to custodial interrogation by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). Senthibalaji was arrested by the ED in June in an alleged money laundering case. The High Court noted since the prosecution and the accused had approached the apex court in connection with the case, it was for the Supreme Court to decide on his custodial interrogation.
The ED was unable to take him into custody for interrogation earlier as he was hospitalised soon after his arrest. After undergoing a bypass surgery, Senthilbalaji has been lodged at the Central Prison in Puzhal, Chennai.
No special treatment given to Senthilbalaji: TN law minister
In a related development, Tamil Nadu Law Minister S Regupathy said no special treatment was being given to Senthilbalaji in prison. He was given the ‘A’ class facility, entitled as per rules.
The bench of Justices Nisha Banu and Bharatha Chakravarthy had earlier given a split verdict in the case, with Justice Banu ruling his arrest was illegal. Subsequently, the matter was referred to Justice CV Karthikeyan, who ruled endorsing Justice Chakravarthy’s verdict upholding the minister’s arrest. Justic Karthikeyan had also said the matter should be placed before the same Division Bench to decide on the Senthilbalaji’s interrogation.
Stand by my judgement: Justice Banu
However, on Tuesday when the Bench met, Justice Banu, said, “I stand by my judgement dated July 4, 2023 that the detenu’s detention is illegal and that he must be set at liberty forthwith. Now, both the parties have also approached the Supreme Court and I do not have anything further to say in the matter.”
Justice Chakravarthy concurred with her and said the habeas corpus petition filed by Senthilbalaji’s wife could be closed in view of the appeals filed by the prosecution and accused before the Supreme Court. The judges then asked both parties to work out their remedy before the Supreme Court.
