
Trial involving ex-minister Senthil Balaji "rudderless ship": SC, slams TN govt, "cricket stadium will be needed"
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which pulled up the Tamil Nadu government for implicating so many persons as accused, questioned whether they are victims or victimisers and asked for the details of the accused and witnesses.
"We want to know from you clearly and definitely what is your prosecution plan. At present, it seems to be a rudderless ship. What would you achieve by clubbing the cases 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 the suggestion come from us? Why did this thought never cross your prosecutor's mind.
"We are not making any comments. These are tentative observations to enable you to enlighten us on the prosecution plan. Tell us within what time you can finish the trial," the bench said.
The bench said it appears to be the most populated trial of India with 2,000 accused and 500 witnesses and a small courtroom would not suffice.
"With over 2,000 accused and 500 witnesses it will be the most populated trial of India. A small courtroom of the trial court will not suffice and a cricket stadium will be needed to even mark the presence of the accused. Several Artificial Intelligence-generated accused will pop up to mark their presence," the bench told senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Y Balaji, who is representing victims of the scam and opposing the decision for clubbing of the cases.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by Y Balaji, challenging the March 28 Madras High Court order dismissing pleas against the clubbing of multiple chargesheets in cases related to the alleged scam.
The bench told Abhishek Singhvi, who is appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, "Let's be frank and blunt. A reluctant state wanted to give a decent burial to these cases. A friendly match was played before the high court and FIRs were quashed. Had it not been for judicial intervention by this court, these cases would not have been revived".
The top court said besides the ex-minister and officials who are prime accused, the other 2,000 persons arrayed as accused technically have committed a crime by giving bribe but on a comparative analysis they are more of a victim than an accused.
"They are more of a victim, than the victimisers. Giving bribes is a crime under the law. These poor people probably were coerced into giving bribes for a job of their son or relative. So prosecuting them would cause extreme inordinate delay. They can be treated more as prosecution witnesses rather than criminals. So the only way forward is we know who these people are," the top court said as it posted the matter for further hearing on August 11.
The bench observed that the trial court judge's report of April 25 submitted in the court appears to be correct that clubbing of cases arising from the same transaction was the only way out as there will be hundreds of same witnesses in different cases.
Sankaranarayanan while seeking appointment of a special public prosecutor, agreed that 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 the bribe, they are the prime accused.
Justice Kant told Sankaranarayanan that he can submit a panel of names of good criminal lawyers practicing in Tamil Nadu and the court can think of appointing them.
Singhvi, however, opposed the suggestion and said that the prayer for appointment of special public prosecutor has been rejected time and again by this court and the petitioner Y Balaji is actually seeking review of those decisions without filing a review petition.
The bench said, "He is a powerful politician. Nothing wrong with being a powerful politician. He is somebody who has public support. But our only concern is that in a case where some person who has held a position of the minister is an accused, where some bureaucrats or other affluent people are facing trial in such cases generally there is a public perception that the prosecution through the government appointed public prosecutor may not alone be able to do justice."
Justice Kant said there can be a public prosecutor who is not from Tamil Nadu and the only motive of the exercise is to bring the prime accused before the law.
On Tuesday, the top court expressed displeasure over the state "attempting to delay" the trial in cases involving Senthil Balaji by implicating more than 2,000 people as accused in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam and described the attempt as a "complete fraud on the judicial system".
Balaji resigned from the M K Stalin-led state Cabinet on April 27 after being pulled up by the top court.
The apex court asked Balaji on April 23 to make a choice "between post and freedom" as it warned him that his bail would be cancelled if he did not step down as a minister.
It took exception to the fact that Balaji was reinstated as a minister in the southern state, days after he obtained bail in a money-laundering case related to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.
On September 26, 2024, the top court granted bail to Balaji in a case probed by the Enforcement Directorate.
With Balaji spending more than 15 months in jail, the top court had observed that there was no possibility that the trial would be concluded in the near future.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Why be touchy? Let's close it': Supreme Court on BJP leader's defamation case against Shashi Tharoor
The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that the criminal defamation case against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor over his 2018 'scorpion sitting on a Shivling' remark about Prime Minister Narendra Modi should be brought to a close, Live Law reported. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor during the Monsoon session of Parliament, in New Delhi on July 28, 2025.(PTI) The matter came up before a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh. While Shashi Tharoor's lawyer requested an adjournment, the complainant's counsel — representing Bharatiya Janata Party leader Rajeev Babbar — asked for the case to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day. In response, Justice Sundresh remarked, 'What non-miscellaneous day? Let us close this. Why do you want to be touchy about all this? Let us close all this. That way, administrators, political personalities and judges form the same group, they have sufficiently thicker skin. Don't worry.'


Hans India
4 minutes ago
- Hans India
India's 1st mobile phone call was between Sukh Ram and Jyoti Basu
New Delhi: It was exactly 30 years ago on 31st July 1995, when India's first mobile call was made, marking a new chapter in the country's communication history. The first call on 31 July 1995 was made between then Union Telecom minister Sukh Ram in Delhi to then Chief Minister of West Bengal Jyoti Basu in Kolkata. Since then, over the last three decades, this journey has not only revolutionised communication but also redefined the country's economic and social landscape. It all started in 1991, when Dr Manmohan Singh, then Finance Minister, dismantled the government monopoly in the sector and invited private investments. The National Telecom Policy of 1994 was followed, and the Government issued tenders for mobile licences. This became the game changer for India's telecom sector, which later became the poster boy of India's economic reforms. In 1997, following the Supreme Court directive, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was constituted for dispute resolution and regulations of the Industry. Previously, the sector was regulated by the Department of Telecom, which was also a policy-maker, with conflicting interests for private players.


The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Exclusion of women political workers from POSH Act: Supreme Court allows Yogamaya to withdraw petition
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 1, 2025) allowed petitioner-advocate MG Yogamaya to withdraw a petition challenging the exclusion of women political workers from the ambit of protection under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 or POSH Act. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said the petitioner could take other necessary steps in accordance with the law. The petition contends that there is no rational or intelligible differentia to exclude women in politics from protections available to women in other professions. The plea, represented by senior advocate Shobha Gupta, said the definitions of 'workplace' and 'employer' under the 2013 Act must be expanded to include the political spectrum. 'Despite the Act's progressive intent, women political workers, particularly at the grassroots, remain vulnerable to sexual exploitation during campaigns and party work, with no effective legal remedy under the existing legislative framework,' it said.