The case stemmed from a complaint by Uthangarai MLA N Elaiyaraja, who belongs to the TVK.
According to the complaint, Elaiyaraja was asked to vote in favour of the resolution.
Appearing for Balaji, Senior Advocate N R Elango argued that the complaint was made two days after the alleged phone call.
Elango submitted that the only material cited by the prosecution was that Balaji was in Erode on the same day.
He also argued that the case was being used to prevent Balaji from discharging his duties, especially with the Karur by-election approaching.
The case stemmed from a complaint by Uthangarai MLA N Elaiyaraja, who belongs to the TVK. He alleged that he was contacted over phone by a person named Thirunavukkarassu and told that a major political party would move a resolution in the assembly to topple Chief Minister Vijay's government.
According to the complaint, Elaiyaraja was asked to vote in favour of the resolution. He alleged that he was offered ₹35 crore for the same and was threatened with dire consequences if he did not act in a particular manner.
The police later claimed that Elaiyaraja had been contacted at the behest of Senthil Balaji and Ashok Kumar. Three persons were arrested in connection with the case on July 1.
Appearing for Balaji, Senior Advocate N R Elango argued that the complaint was made two days after the alleged phone call. He submitted that there was no recording of the call and that the prosecution was relying only on call detail records.
Elango further argued that the allegations against Balaji were based on presumptions, including the allegation that there was an attempt to topple the government. During the hearing, the Court noted that there was nothing against Balaji in the FIR and hence, sought details on what role was ascribed to him.
Elango submitted that the only material cited by the prosecution was that Balaji was in Erode on the same day. He also argued that the case was being used to prevent Balaji from discharging his duties, especially with the Karur by-election approaching.
