The Supreme Court has granted interim relief from arrest to former Tamil Nadu Minister and current MLA V. Senthil Balaji in connection with a multi-crore corruption case registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).

The Court issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu while directing that no coercive action be taken against Balaji, subject to his full cooperation with the investigating agency and the surrender of his passport.

The order comes immediately after the Madras High Court dismissed his anticipatory bail application on July 30, citing the need for custodial interrogation in light of severe allegations involving criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, and massive financial loss to the State exchequer during his tenure as Minister between 2021 and 2025.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Heard learned counsels for the parties. Issue notice. Notice accepted by...Counter affidavit to be filed within a week. It is directed that, subject to full cooperation with the ongoing investigation, his arrest shall remain stayed...the Petitioner is directed to deposit the passport with the investigating authorities."

 Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Balaji, while Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Sibal submitted, "This is a strange case...the events is between 2021 and 2025...there is an affidavit filed by the ED in 2025 by a person who has now turned against, so he has changed sides, he was some additional secretary because now the Government has changed..."

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) registered a First Information Report (FIR) on July 28, 2026, against  Senthil Balaji, former Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise in the State of Tamil Nadu and present MLA of the Coimbatore South constituency, along with others.

The FIR alleged large-scale irregularities and corruption in the functioning of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) during his ministerial tenure between 2021 and 2025.

The prosecution invoked Sections 120-B, 167, 409, 109, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Sections 61(2), 201, and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a), as well as Section 7(c) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

When the matter was taken up in the morning, Justice V Mohana recused herself from hearing the anticipatory bail plea.

On behalf of the respondent State, Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar opposed the petition, contending that the case involved large-scale corruption in excess of hundreds of crores and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was essential due to apprehension of tampering with evidence.

He said, "The State files an application saying the ED should not take any action...Now they want to take advantage of their own wrong by saying the State should not take any action...There are six very serious cases. He was a Minister in the previous government. This is a huge scam running into hundreds of crores."

Countering the state's submission, the Bench observed that the petitioner was no longer holding a ministerial office, was not in custody, and that the investigation was primarily based on documentary evidence in the possession of the state agencies.

The Court noted that the state remained at liberty to conduct an independent and thorough investigation into the matter.

However, considering that the petitioner was not a flight risk, the Court observed that his liberty ought to be protected subject to stringent conditions ensuring complete cooperation with the investigating machinery.

According to the case of the prosecution, the accused, while holding public office as Minister, entered into a criminal conspiracy with private individuals, distillery and brewery entities, transport firms, bottling entities, and unknown public servants of TASMAC. It was alleged that the accused committed criminal breach of trust, framed incorrect documents, misappropriated funds, laundered illicit money, and caused severe financial loss to the State exchequer.

Apprehending arrest in connection with the aforementioned FIR, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or relevant provisions of the BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner pleaded innocence, contending that the allegations raised against him were omnibus in nature and devoid of specific details regarding tenders or contracts.

It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that TASMAC operated as an independent body wherein the Minister possessed no direct role in tender allocations or daily administration.

The petitioner also alleged political hostility and pointed out that the present FIR immediately followed the dismissal of his petition seeking protection against police harassment.

It was further highlighted that the Supreme Court of India had previously granted an interim stay in related proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against TASMAC.

The Madras High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The High Court observed that the matter involved large-scale corruption and abuse of official position resulting in substantial losses to the public exchequer.

Holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for effective investigation, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.

Cause Title: V Senthil Balaji v. State  [Diary No. 45695/2026]

Tags: