Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court, on July 30, rebuked the Tamil Nadu government for naming over 2,000 individuals as ‘accused’ in the cash-for-jobs scam involving former state minister V Senthil Balaji. The court also described the allegations as “aimless”, potentially manipulative and a “complete fraud on the system”. According to sources, the number of accused listed in the case is 2,202.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the state government to submit a comprehensive list of all accused and witnesses, as well as a concrete prosecutorial plan for conducting the trial in the complex and sprawling case.
The court also expressed alarm at the scale and design of the prosecution, particularly the implication of bribe-givers as accused persons, many of whom were allegedly coerced or financially desperate.
The case relates to V Senthil Balaji’s tenure as Transport Minister in the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government between 2011 and 2015, during which he allegedly orchestrated a cash-for-jobs scam in the Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation (CMTC). Candidates were allegedly asked to pay bribes for recruitment as drivers, conductors, junior assistants, and engineers.
Now, 2,202 individuals have been named as accused in 10 charge sheets filed by the Tamil Nadu police. Many of these individuals were initially complainants or job applicants.
During the July 30 hearing, Justice Kant observed, “You are 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.”
According to Bar & Bench, Justice Bagchi remarked, “We want from you clearly and definitely what your prosecutorial plan is. It seems to be a very rudderless ship… with 2000 witnesses summoned in a court hall, it will perhaps be one of the most populated trials in India ... you’ll need a cricket stadium.”
The court further ridiculed the enormity of the trial, with Justice Kant joking that “hundreds of AI-generated accused” might be needed to mark attendance.
‘Bribe-givers are effectively victims’
Justice Kant emphasised the need to distinguish between the prime accused and marginal participants, suggesting that prosecuting poor bribe-payers would lead to an “extreme inordinate delay”.
Justice Bagchi further said, “Why should it come from us? This thought never crossed your prosecutor's mind.”
He also said that managing such a vast pool of accused and witnesses would require visual tools like Venn diagrams to help understand overlaps in witness and accused lists.
Call for Special Public Prosecutor
The bench also raised concerns about fairness and public confidence.
“He is a powerful politician. Nothing wrong with being a powerful politician… but there is a public perception that a prosecution through the government-appointed public prosecutor may not alone be able to do justice,” Justice Kant said.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the complainants, agreed, suggesting a Special Public Prosecutor be appointed and that the state focus on prosecuting Balaji, his brother, his personal assistant (PA), and others who solicited bribes, while treating poor job-seekers as witnesses.
However, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, opposed this suggestion, saying that previous benches had already rejected the demand for a Special Prosecutor. He added, “Appointing one from outside of the state can create the negative impression that the state will not prosecute.”
SC criticises Madras High Court
Justice Kant also criticised the Madras High Court’s earlier decision to quash FIRs, suggesting it was a “friendly match” between parties. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had to intervene to revive the proceedings, which would have otherwise languished indefinitely.
The bench directed Tamil Nadu to submit the list of accused and witnesses, identify overlaps, and present a second prosecutorial plan by August 11, when the matter is next listed. All matters connected to the case against Balaji must be listed on the same day, the court ordered.
Background of the case
Balaji, currently with the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in June 2023 in a money laundering case linked to the jobs scam. He spent over 14 months in custody before being granted bail by the Supreme Court in September 2024.
Three days after release, he was reinducted into the Tamil Nadu cabinet, sparking outrage. The Supreme Court later intervened again, questioning how a minister under investigation could resume office. On April 23, 2025, the bench led by Justice Oka gave Balaji an ultimatum to choose between office and bail. He resigned from the cabinet on April 27.
On March 28, 2025, the Madras High Court had upheld the clubbing of four supplementary charge sheets, citing that the offences arose from the same transaction and involved common witnesses and documents.
However, the Supreme Court now appears focused on restoring prosecutorial clarity, eliminating unjustified inclusion of marginal actors, and expediting proceedings against the prime accused.
“First, we want the list of accused. That is the biggest bottleneck. Give a list of witnesses also so that we can see how many accused and witnesses are overlapping,” Justice Kant concluded.