The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Madras High Court order that stayed proceedings against Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister and DMK MLA V. Senthil Balaji, among others in the cash-for-jobs scam, while directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct a fresh probe into the charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V. Ramasubramanian further allowed the appeals arising out of the September 2022 order of the High Court regarding de-novo investigation.
While setting aside the portion of the High Court order that dealt with de-novo investigation, the Apex Court directed the investigating officers to proceed with further investigation in all cases, by including offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Bench further ruled that anyone on part of the investigating officers would pave the way for this court to consider appointing a special investigation team (SIT) in the future.
State Electricity Minister Balaji, along with other people, were accused of accepting bribes from job aspirants in exchange of appointment to the State Transport Corporation between 2011 and 2015.
The Apex Court dismissed the three writ petitions filed by the DMK Legislator and others, challenging the initiation of proceedings against them by ED under the PMLA.
It also rejected the appeals arising out of the March 2022 verdict delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court, along with the appeals challenging the November 2019 and November 2021 orders leading to an extension of time for completion of the investigation, besides the contempt petitions and interlocutory applications.
The hearing of the case witnessed arguments being made against the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Earlier, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had argued that the July 2022 order of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case needed a ‘relook’.
Senior Counsel C. Aryama Sundaram had contended that he would read the judgement as it stood to support his interpretation of the Act, but such an interpretive scheme did not support the modus operandi of ED, which routinely conducted ‘fishing’ enquiries to implicate people in money laundering cases.