The Madras High Court recently notified the Supreme Court that corruption and cheating charges related to the cash-for-jobs scam, where Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji is the primary accused, have been reassigned to a dedicated district judge with a lighter caseload. This judge, operating within Special Court No. 1 for MP/MLA criminal cases, will focus specifically on these cases, minimizing delays and enhancing judicial focus.
The Supreme Court, represented by Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, took note of this procedural shift, as per an update submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court following a Supreme Court directive issued on September 30, 2024. This decision was reached after the apex court urged that the scale of the case—featuring over 2,000 accused and around 600 witnesses—required the attention of a judge unburdened by an extensive caseload. Justice Oka clarified that the purpose was to balance judicial efficiency with fairness to all parties involved.
In the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, representing the complainants, argued for a special prosecutor, noting potential conflicts of interest. He pointed out that the current public prosecutor reports to the Chief Minister through the Director of Prosecution, potentially compromising neutrality, especially given the Chief Minister’s public statements supporting Balaji’s innocence. Justice Oka raised questions about court authority in assigning prosecutorial oversight, with Sankarnarayanan citing the precedent of the 2G spectrum case and indicating plans to submit an official request.
### Case Background and Legal Developments
Senthil Balaji, while serving as transport minister from 2011 to 2016, allegedly engaged in corrupt practices, collecting payments from job seekers in exchange for promised roles within the Tamil Nadu transport department. Following complaints by candidates who reported that their payments did not result in employment, Balaji was charged under IPC Section 420 (cheating) and sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a money laundering case, resulting in Balaji’s arrest in June 2023. ED representative Advocate Zoheb Hossain previously highlighted to the Supreme Court that one of the cases involved more than 2,000 accused individuals.
Balaji’s bail request had earlier been denied by the Madras High Court, which found his arguments of evidence tampering unsubstantiated and raised concerns about his continued influence as a minister without portfolio. The Court stressed that his position could potentially lead to witness tampering, recalling previous allegations that Balaji had attempted to interfere with evidence in the initial predicate offense investigation.
The Supreme Court, during the current proceedings, also examined the viability of advancing with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) trial independently from the original predicate offense trial, given the extensive number of individuals implicated and the complex nature of evidence involved. This raised broader questions regarding judicial efficiency, procedural fairness, and case management in large-scale corruption cases.
