The Supreme Court adjourned on Wednesday hearing on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, challenging the Madras High Court order that entertained the habeas corpus plea filed against the arrest of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji and also permitted him to be shifted to a private hospital for medical treatment.
The Vacation Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that a petition over the issue was pending before the Madras High Court, which was set to hear the same tomorrow.
Noting that the High Court was yet to give its final opinion on the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition, the Apex Court posted the matter for hearing on July 4.
It further observed that the HC was yet to decide over whether to exclude the period of treatment undergone by the detenu from the period of custodial interrogation.
Calling the High Courts as robust institutions and constitutional courts, the Apex Court said it would not pass any order merely on apprehension and would wait for the High Court verdict on the matter.
Appearing for ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to the High Court passing the interim order on a habeas corpus petition filed by Megala Balaji, wife of Senthil Balaji.
Noting that a habeas corpus petition was not maintainable against arrest by an authority in accordance with law, the SG pointed out that Balaji had argued before the High Court that his arrest was illegal as notice under Section 41A CrPC was not served.
SG Mehta mentioned the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, in which the Supreme Court held that Section 41A CrPC was not applicable to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
He further said that the High Court entertaining the habeas corpus petition itself was illegal.
However, the Apex Court noted that the High Court was yet to hold the petition as not maintainable, adding that entertaining a petition should not be confused as holding it maintainable.
It noted that the Supreme Court cannot pass a ‘pre-emptive’ order based on assumptions.
SG Mehta then argued that the High Court’s approach was contrary to the Supreme Court’s settled precedent in the Rahul Modi case. However, the Vacation Bench said the ED can raise these issues before the High Court.