Supreme Court To See Progress Of Trial Before Considering Appointment Of SPP In Jobs Scam Case Against Senthil Balaji

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 23) said that it would first see how the trial in the Tamil Nadu cash for jobs scam, in which former Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused, is proceedings before considering the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with an application filed by certain victims of the scam seeking appointment of a Special Public prosecutor (SPP) for the trial in the case. The bench expressed disinclination to grant this prayer at this stage, stating that it will monitor how the trial goes.“We will monitor the trial…Let the prosecutor start the trial. That is the only way of doing it. See today you are saying that replace the prosecutor. Why should we do it today? We will find out how the trial proceeds”, Justice Oka said.In its order, the Court directed the State to submit all applications and correspondence with the Governor's office regarding the sanction to prosecute Balaji for corruption. The Court also sought copies of orders appointing prosecutors in the relevant cases and details about the prosecutor's experience and qualifications. The affidavit in terms of this order has to be filed within one week, and the matter is listed on September 2, 2024.Opposing the prayer, the Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu told the court that there was no need for this as the charge sheet was already filed within the time set by the Court. He submitted that the existing public prosecutor before the MP/MLA court is a law officer having over 22 years of service in conducting prosecution.He further told the court that while sanctions for prosecuting all other public servants involved in the case have been obtained, the sanction against Balaji is still pending with the Governor. He informed the court that all necessary documents have been submitted to the Governor. As soon as the sanction is obtained, the trial will start, he said.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that a neutral court-appointed SPP could determine which witnesses are necessary, arguing that this would ensure expeditious disposal of the trial.Justice Oka questioned whether an order that might cast aspersions on the existing prosecutor can be passed. “Chargesheet has been filed. Some public prosecutor must be seized of the matter. Can we pass mechanical order that will cast aspersions on the public prosecutor there”, he asked.Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the victims/applicants argued that the court in previous judgments in this case have criticized the state government and the investigating authority.“We don't know whether prosecutor is good or bad and you are casting aspersions on him directly. On what basis? Very Unfortunate that against members of the bar who have worked for 22 years aspersions you are casting” Justice Oka remarked.SG Mehta and Sankaranarayanan insisted that they are not casting aspersion on anyone. They said that the Chief Justice of Madras High Court should appoint the SPP.“How Chief Justice will know who is the impartial prosecutor?”, Justice Oka responded.Sankaranarayanan submitted that appointing an SPP is necessary to inspire confidence in the victims. Sankaranarayanan highlighted cases such as 2G Scam, Coal Scam etc. where special prosecutors were appointed. He pointed out that in the case of Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalitha the entire trial was transferred to another state. However, Justice Oka said that the victims have the remedy of approaching the state with their request.“Every case is different. Don't give us examples of other trials. We will permit you to apply for the appointment of special prosecutor named by you. You name a public prosecutor. Today will permit to apply to the state”, Justice Oka said.The Court also questioned how the first informant or the ED can ask for dropping of witnesses in the trial.“Can we decide sitting here that certain witnesses should be dropped? It will affect your case. Now how can first informants insist that some witness be dropped? Such a process is unheard of. And Mr Solicitor, we are also shocked to see that ED wants certain witnesses to be dropped in such a serious case”, Justice Oka said.However, Solicitor General Mehta clarified that he was not suggesting the exclusion of any witnesses but that the SPP determine the relevance of witnesses. Justice Oka expressed doubt about whether a state-appointed prosecutor could exercise such discretion. “Who will decide which witnesses were not the relevant witnesses. We have serious doubts whether a prosecutor appointed by the state can exercise discretion and say that I don't want to examine certain witnesses”, he said.Justice Oka questioned the applicant's continued insistence on replacing the prosecutor, especially without specific allegations against the current prosecutor.BackgroundSenthil Balaji, who served as the Minister in the Tamil Nadu government's transport department from 2011 to 2016, is accused of...

Supreme Court To See Progress Of Trial Before Considering Appointment Of SPP In Jobs Scam Case Against Senthil Balaji

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court To See Progress Of Trial Before Considering Appointment Of SPP In Jobs Scam Case Against Senthil Balaji

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers