Cash-for-jobs scam: Supreme Court allows ED to probe TN Minister Senthil Balaji; sets aside HC order directing fresh probe

In a setback to Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Madras High Court directing the State Police to conduct a fresh investigation in the cash-for-jobs scam case [Y Balaji v. Karthik Desari]..A Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian said that the investigation officer has to proceed with the ongoing investigation in all cases by including offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. "Any let up on the part of the Investigation Officer in this regard will pave the way for this Court to consider appointing a Special Investigation Team in future," the judgment recorded. The bench also dismissed appeals challenging the initiation of proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)..The High Court had ordered for a fresh investigation by the police in the matter October 2022 in a plea by the very first complainant. The top court, however, opined that the High Court ordered fresh investigation on a point that was not even canvassed in the petition."What is shocking is that the High Court directed reinvestigation to be started ab initio, wiping out the earlier investigation altogether," the apex court further said.It was observed that by issuing such a direction, the High Court not only directed the wiping out of the investigation carried out so far, but virtually wiped out the top court's judgment as well."Hail judicial discipline," the Supreme Court said in a judgment highly critical of the High Court's verdict. .Pertinently, in the context of the petitioner who sought for the investigation to begin afresh, the Court said,"It appears that Devasagayam, originally seems to have had a genuine grievance against the culprits at the bottom of the layer, but he later turned out to be a Trojan horse, willing to sabotage the investigation against influential persons ... Devasagayam leapfrogged several miles to protect the actual culprits.."Strong objection was also taken to the use of the term 'wiping out' for the earlier probe."It is true that English is not our mother tongue. It is also true that some allowance (or discount ranging from 0 to 90%) can be given at times to the use of certain loose expressions. But the expressions used in paragraphs 79 to 81 of the impugned order do not reflect a mere deficiency in language or law, but something more," reads the judgment..As regards the ED probe, the Court allowed the appeals against the High Court's order which had restrained the ED from proceeding with its investigation till the clog on cases relating to the predicate offences was removed.Thus, the ED will now be entitled to proceed further from the stage at which their hands were tied by the High Court order.The effect of the order under challenge was that the ED would only be able to proceed once revision petitions filed by the minister, as well as the petition for fresh investigation, were decided on. "In other words, the High Court has not quashed the summons issued by ED. The High Court had merely injuncted ED from proceeding further till the clog on the cases relating to the predicate offences is removed," the Supreme Court said..Before the apex court were twelve appeals, four challenging the quashing of summons issued by ED, six of them challenging the order for fresh investigation, one of them challenging an order permitting ED to have inspection of documents and the last arising out of the order refusing to grant further time for completion of investigation.Apart from that, the top court was also hearing two contempt petitions complaining of willful disobedience of the its directions for the inclusion of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act..The cases arose from alleged irregularities in the appointment of bus conductors in the State transport department and the appointment of drivers and junior engineers. All of these appointments were made during Balaji's tenure as Transport Minister in the AIADMK government between 2011 and 2015. .Recording its response to objections on the appeals' maintainability, the top court recognised that it was the State which is entrusted with the onerous responsibility of prosecuting the accused and getting them punished.However, it went on to make vital observations on the polluted stream of criminal justice."But we must remember that certain theories of law were developed at a time when the process of administration of the criminal justice system was in the hands of honest and responsible Police officials and the stream remained largely unpolluted. Today the situation is different."Thus, the Court opined that in cases of this nature wherein some of the complainants and the accused have come together to form an unholy alliance, victims of crime cannot be left at the mercy of such partnerships..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the ED. Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocates Prashant Bhushan and Balaji Srinivasan appeared for the victims and the Anti Corruption Movement. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, C Aryama Sundaram, Sidharth Luthra, and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the accused.Senior Advocates V Mohana and Siddharth Agrawal appeared for the de facto complainants.Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu..[Read Judgment]