'Most Populated Trial In India With 2000 Accused' : Supreme Court Criticises Tamil Nadu's Prosecution Of Senthil Balaji Cash-for-Jobs Case

The Supreme Court today asked the Tamil Nadu government to submit a complete list of accused and witnesses in the corruption cases arising out of the cash-for-jobs corruption cases involving former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticised the prosecution being conducted by the state of Tamil Nadu in the cases. The Court described the prosecution as a “rudderless ship,” asking why suggestions to filter accused based on marginal or prime culpability had not come from the prosecution.“We want from you clearly and definitely what is your prosecutorial plan. It seems to be a very rudderless ship with 2000 odd accused, 500 odd witnesses. How would you achieve clubbing until and unless we gave a suggestion that you see the witnesses with regards to their degree of marginal culpability and prime culpability? Why should it come from us? This thought never crossed your prosecutor's mind”, Justice Bagchi remarked.Justice Kant noted that in two of the matters, the number of accused exceeds 900 and may approach 2,000, and that clubbing may be the only solution to expedite the trial. He remarked that the bribegivers, though technically also committed a crime, are effectively victims and prosecuting them would cause “extreme inordinate delay.” Justice Bagchi added that that with such a high number of accused and witnesses in the case, it will be the “most populated trial in India.” Just marking the appearance of all the accused and witnesses will be difficult and a cricket stadium will be required to accommodate everyone in the trial, he said.Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the complainants agreed with Justice Kant, noting that some accused persons, including grandmothers who pawned jewellery to secure jobs for their grandchildren, are more properly treated as witnesses. He suggested that the State identify the prime accused namely the Minister, his brother, his personal assistant, and others who solicited bribes and treat the rest as witnesses. He also proposed appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the State of Tamil Nadu opposed the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. He said the Court has already rejected such prayers, and that parties who earlier accused the investigation of bias cannot now seek both roles.Justice Surya Kant asked the State for full disclosure of all accused and their descriptions. He expressed concern about public perception that a government-appointed prosecutor may not bring justice in a case involving a powerful politician and affluent bureaucrats. “He is a powerful politician. Nothing wrong with being a powerful politician. Somebody who has public support. Only concern is that in a case where some person who has held the position of the Minister there are some bureaucrats or other affluent people who are facing trial there is a public perception that a prosecution through the Government appointed public prosecutive may not alone be able to do justice”, Justice Kant said.Singhvi highlighted that Justice Abhay Oka, who had been monitoring the trial for a year, had rejected the request for a Special Public Prosecutor, and that appointing one from outside the State could create an impression that the State will not prosecute. “Special Public Prosecutor say, from outside of the state sometimes it can have a kind of a very negative impression and a meaning as if the state will not prosecute”, he said.Justice Bagchi clarified that the bench's observations are tentative and made to prompt a prosecutorial plan, and asked the State to indicate a timeframe to complete the trial. Singhvi said other benches were satisfied with the pace of the trial, but promised to submit a second plan.Justice Kant remarked that the FIRs had previously been quashed by the High Court through a “friendly match”, and that the cases were revived by this Court's intervention, referring to a settlement between the accused and the victims which was later set aside by the Supreme Court.“All the FIRs were quashed at the high court level thanks to a kind of a friendly match made there. Because of the judicial intervention of this court the matters have been revived. We have no doubt that you will continue but what is wrong if some additional strength is infused?”, Justice Kant said, questioning the state's opposition to appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.He added, “First we want the list of accused. That is the biggest bottle neck. Give a list of witnesses also so that we can see how many accused and witnesses are overlapping.”The matter has been posted for next hearing on 11 August 2025.BackgroundThe cash‑for‑jobs case arose from allegations of corrupt practices during Balaji's tenure as Transport Minister (2011-2015) relating to recruitment in the Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation. The Madras High Court dismissed petitions challenging the clubbing of charge sheets on 28 March 2025 after...

'Most Populated Trial In India With 2000 Accused' : Supreme Court Criticises Tamil Nadu's Prosecution Of Senthil Balaji Cash-for-Jobs Case

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags