The Supreme Court recently extended the time granted to the state of Tamil Nadu for investigation into the cash for jobs scam till 30th of September. The Apex Court however, made it clear that no further extensions would be granted and that a Special Investigation Team would be constituted to investigate the issue, if the State fails to adhere to the timeline.
In the cash-for-jobs scam, the Tamil Nadu minister and DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, among others, have been accused of accepting bribes from job aspirants in exchange of appointments to the state transport corporation between 2011 and 2015. Balaji is now in judicial custody in the money laundering case in relation to this scam. On 7th August, the Supreme Court dismissed Balaji's plea challenging the custody by the Enforcement Directorate.
On 8th August a division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while extending the time for competition of investigation till 30th September, made it clear that no further extension of time would be given to the State:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel, we grant one more opportunity by extending the time till 30th September, 2023.
It is made clear that no further application for extension of time would be entertained and in the event, the above mentioned directions are not complied with, the same may be brought to the notice of this Court and in that case, the Special Investigation Team would be constituted.” The Court said in its order.
On 16th May 2022, the Supreme Court had allowed a batch of appeals against an order of the Madras High Court ordering a fresh enquiry into the scam. Two months’ time was granted to the state to complete the investigation and file reports.
“…The Investigation Officer shall proceed with further investigation in all cases by including the offences under the PC Act [Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988]. 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 Apex Court had said in its May 16th order.
Sr. Adv. Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu informed the Court that 5 categories of appointments needed to be investigated i.e. Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Junior Tradesman, Driver and Conductor. He informed the Court that the investigation for Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, is complete but atleast six months’ time would be required to finish the investigation. He also submitted that sanctions from the State under Section 197 of CrPC or Section 19 of the PC Act were required as offences under the PC Act need to be incorporated.
The Court however, expressed its displeasure at this request of the State and granted time only till 30th September:
“We had expressed our displeasure to Shri Gupta, learned senior counsel asking for six months’ time, which is totally unreasonable, inasmuch as in the original order itself this Court granted two months’ time. Any further extension of time cannot be more than the period fixed in the original order passed by this Court.”
Background
In the years 2014-2015, recruitment for the post of reserve crew drivers, crew conductors, junior tradesmen (JTM), junior assistant (JA), junior engineer (JE) and assistant engineer (AE) was conducted in all the transport corporations in the State of Tamil Nadu. It has been alleged that in these appointments, various officials of the transport department colluded jointly and severally, including the then-transport minister Senthil Balaji in the AIADMK-led regime. Balaji currently holds, among others, the ‘electricity’ and ‘prohibition and excise’ portfolios in the Tamil Nadu cabinet, as a minister of Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK party.
In 2018, a complaint was filed against Balaji and others for taking bribes from job aspirants on the false promise of appointing them to various posts in the Metro Transport Corporation (MTC).
Balaji and others were booked for offences under Sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequent to the lodging of an FIR in 2018, a charge sheet was filed in the following year. However, in 2021, the Madras High Court quashed the cheating case pending before a special court for Members of Parliament (MP) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA) in the state, after being told that the complainant and the thirteen alleged victims – arrayed as witnesses in the case – had arrived at a settlement with the accused. Two other FIRs filed in this connection were also stayed subsequently.
In the meantime, Balaji received a summons from the office of the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madurai Sub Zonal Office in connection with the recruitment scam. The summons was challenged before the Madras High Court on the ground that there were no jurisdictional facts to initiate any proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. This argument found favour with the bench which, in September 2022, allowed the petitions moved by Minister Senthil Balaji and two others and quashed the summons issued by ED.
Not long after this, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer set aside the order of the Madras High Court by which it had quashed the proceedings against the former transport minister and restored the criminal complaint against him and the others.
In November of the same year, the Madras High Court ordered a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-job scam, with Justice V Sivagnanam observing that there were irregularities in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency and that it has overlooked certain crucial aspects. This order for denovo investigation was set aside by the Supreme Court in May 2023.
Most recently on 7th August 2023, the Apex Court dismissed Balaji's plea challenging the custody by the ED. A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh dismissed the petitions filed by Balaji and his wife Megala challenging the Madras High Court's judgment which held that the ED was entitled to take Balaji into police custody. The Court also rejected their pleas that the ED's arrest was illegal.
Case Title: Y Balaji V. The State Represented By Commissioner Respondent(S)/ Of Police & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1675-1676 of 2023
0 Comments