The Supreme Court on 30 July 2025 sharply criticised the Tamil Nadu government over its handling of the trial in the cash-for-jobs scam involving former state minister V Senthil Balaji, saying the case had been allowed to balloon to unmanageable proportions.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea challenging a March 2024 order of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed objections to the clubbing of multiple charge sheets in the matter. The Court was informed that over 2,300 people had been named as accused in the scam.
“We want from you clearly and definitely what is your prosecutorial plan. It seems to be a very rudderless ship…With 200 witnesses summoned in a court hall, it will perhaps be one of the most populated trials in India… You’ll need a cricket stadium,” Justice Bagchi remarked, questioning how a trial of such magnitude could be conducted without a proper plan.
Justice Kant also expressed disbelief at the logistics of such a trial, stating, “Almost impossible task will be to mark their presence. There will be 100s of AI-generated accused on that day.”
The Bench took note of the State’s conduct in the matter, suggesting that the prosecution strategy was designed to delay proceedings and protect the main accused.
“You are more keen to prosecute them so that in the entire lifetime of the minister, the trial proceedings never come to an end. This is your modus operandi. This is a complete fraud being committed on the system,” the Court said.
The judges directed the State to identify the key individuals involved in the scam apart from Balaji, including intermediaries, public officials, and members of selection committees.
“We would like to know besides the minister, who were the alleged brokers or middlemen? Who were the officers who acted on the recommendations of the minister? Who were the members of the selection committee? Who were the authorities who gave the appointment?” Justice Kant asked.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, alleged that the State was colluding with the ex-minister and had wrongly framed victims of the scam.
“The best approach is to see who are the genuine accused such as the minister, his brother, his PA, and the other people around him who solicited this. The others who are now arrayed as accused saying they are bribe givers, whether they are prime accused or whether they can be treated like witnesses is a call that can be taken,” he submitted.
Sankaranarayanan also suggested the appointment of a special public prosecutor to ensure independent prosecution.
However, appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed the proposal, arguing that the Supreme Court had earlier rejected similar requests.
“It sends the wrong signal. That we don’t trust our own prosecution and judiciary. That we need to get someone from Kerala or Bengal to prosecute our case,” Singhvi said, warning that it would create an impression of external distrust in the Tamil Nadu legal system. He also accused the petitioner of “forum shopping.”
The Court, while not immediately accepting the request, said it could appoint an additional special public prosecutor if necessary to support the current legal team.
Justice Bagchi expressed surprise that the prosecution had no plan to classify accused individuals based on their culpability.
“How would you achieve clubbing until and unless we gave a suggestion that you see the witnesses with regard to their degree of marginal culpability and prime culpability? Why should it come from us? This thought never crossed your prosecutor’s mind,” he asked.
The Court also criticised earlier Madras High Court orders that had quashed FIRs in the case.
“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,” Justice Kant observed.
The Bench directed the State to submit a detailed list of all accused and witnesses to identify overlaps and streamline the process of clubbing cases.
“Give a list of witnesses also so that we can see how many accused and witnesses are overlapping,” Justice Kant said.
“In fact, create Venn diagrams,” Justice Bagchi added in a lighter tone.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on 11 August 2025. The Court also said it would list all other pending cases involving Senthil Balaji on the same date.
Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 14 June 2023, in connection with a money laundering case linked to FIRs registered in 2018. The FIRs pertain to allegations that, during his tenure as Transport Minister in the AIADMK government between 2011 and 2015, he orchestrated a large-scale recruitment scam by accepting bribes in exchange for jobs in state-run transport corporations.
In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted Balaji bail, observing that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon due to the large number of accused and the slow pace of proceedings.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
