Supreme Court slams 'Rudderless' Cash-for-Jobs Trial, says Senthil Balaji case needs stadium to fit 2,000 Accused

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made scathing remarks on the State’s decision to implicate more than 2,000 individuals, many of them poor job seekers, as accused, while failing to present a clear prosecution strategy.

The Court directed the State to submit a definite plan and explain how it intended to complete a trial involving such a large number of people and over 500 witnesses.

“What do you achieve by clubbing all these cases? You need to classify witnesses and accused based on degrees of culpability. This looks like the most populated trial in Indian history. You’ll need a stadium, not a courtroom,” the bench observed.

The Court was hearing a petition by Y. Balaji, who had challenged the Madras High Court’s March 28 order allowing the clubbing of multiple chargesheets in the scam.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Balaji, informed the Bench that a proper prosecution strategy was lacking, and sought the appointment of a special public prosecutor (SPP) to ensure an independent trial process.

The Bench agreed in principle, noting that “prime accused” such as Senthil Balaji, his brother, and close aides must be distinguished from minor accused, many of whom were likely coerced into paying bribes. “Giving bribe is technically a crime, but these people may be more victims than perpetrators. Prosecuting all of them will cause extreme delay,” the Court said.

It also questioned the Tamil Nadu government’s motives, remarking, “Let’s be blunt. A reluctant State wanted to bury these cases. Had it not been for this Court’s intervention, these FIRs would’ve been dead.”

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu opposed the suggestion for a SPP, arguing that the Court had already dismissed similar requests and that the petitioner was attempting a "backdoor review".

The Court, however, remained firm on the need for an independent prosecution, noting that “when a powerful politician, ex-minister, or senior bureaucrats are accused, there’s always a perception that a government-appointed prosecutor won’t be enough.” It suggested that the SPP could be from outside Tamil Nadu and asked Sankaranarayanan to submit a list of names.

The Court also took note of the trial court judge’s April 25 report, which supported clubbing the cases given the overlap in witnesses, but reiterated that fairness and efficiency must be ensured in the process.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on August 11.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has flagged concerns over Senthil Balaji’s role. On April 23, the Court had asked him to choose “between post and freedom” and cautioned that his bail in a money laundering case could be cancelled if he did not resign. He stepped down on April 27. Balaji had earlier been reinstated in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet despite facing serious charges, prompting judicial scrutiny.

He was granted bail by the Supreme Court on September 26, 2024, after spending over 15 months in jail, with the Bench noting that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.