'No bearing on trial': SC refuses to expunge remarks against ex-TN minister Senthil Balaji
The bench said the adverse remarks made against Balaji in the order won't affect the pending proceedings before the trial court
Supreme Court: Ex Minister Senthilbalaji
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to expunge its remarks against former Tamil Nadu minister Senthilbalaji in its September 2022 order restoring criminal complaints and other verdicts against him in the cash-for-job case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it would not modify or “touch a single word” in the 2022 order or any judgment in the case, as it deprecated the practice of filing pleas for modification of orders in the top court after the retirement of judges who penned such verdicts.
“This practice of filing an application after the judges who passed the order or judgment was as bad as forum shopping. These applications can be dismissed on this ground alone,” Justice Kant said.
The bench, however, said the adverse remarks made against Balaji in the order won't affect the pending proceedings before the trial court.
“We will not expunge anything, we will not touch a single word in the order, and we are not going to touch or modify any judgment. However, we will only clarify that the observations shall have no bearing on the trial. That's a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence...Basic principles are always to be followed. There's no question of entertaining any review,” the bench said.
The three applications for expunging the remarks relate to a May 2023 verdict allowing the ED to probe against Balaji while quashing a Madras High Court order for a fresh investigation; a September 2022 decision restoring the trial against him, and last year's order refusing to cancel his bail in the money laundering case.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Balaji, did not press for the relief and instead sought the court to say its observations should not influence the trial in the case.
“Applications are disposed of with a clarification that the observations shall have no bearing on the pending trial,” the bench ordered.
The top court also questioned Balaji's conduct, saying he filed the applications after a gap of two years for modification of the verdicts when both judges had retired.
