Madras High Court Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala has granted administrative approval for listing a habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by arrested Minister V. Senthilbalaji’s wife Megala before a Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy to decide the date from when he could be subjected to custodial interrogation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a case booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
ADVERTISEMENT
The approval was granted after the Registry placed the papers before the Chief Justice in accordance with a judicial order passed by Justice C. V. Karthikeyan, the third judge who decided the case after a split verdict by the Division Bench, on July 4. The third judge had held that the ED was entitled to subject the Minister to custodial interrogation but observed that the period of such interrogation could be decided only by the Division Bench.
He had directed the High Court Registry to list the case again before the Division Bench after obtaining the CJ’s approval. Sources in the Registry said, the HCP would now be listed before the Division Bench after ascertaining the convenience of Justices Banu and Chakravarthy since the latter had gone to the Madurai Bench of the High Court for a three-month tenure from July 3 and would have to join the hearing only through video conference.
Though the two judges in the Division Bench had heard the arguments on the HCP in person at the Principal Seat of the High Court in Chennai and reserved their orders on June 28, they delivered a split verdict, through video conference, on July 4 since by then Justice Chakravarthy had gone to Madurai. While Justice Banu allowed the HCP and ordered that the Minister should be set at liberty, Justice Chakravarthy differed with her and dismissed the HCP.
The split verdict necessitated a fresh hearing of the case before Justice Karthikeyan who aligned himself with the views of Justice Chakravarthy and held that the HCP could not be entertained. He also ruled that the Minister could be subjected to custodial interrogation by the ED but left it to the wisdom of the Division Bench to decide the date from when it could be done.