NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said a cricket stadium would be required to even mark the presence of the accused, as it slammed the Tamil Nadu government for roping in 2000 accused along with 500 witnesses in a trial against former Minister V Senthil Balaji in connection with cash for jobs scam.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the state government to provide the list of accused and witnesses in the case against Balaji, while dealing with a plea against clubbing of cases of bribe givers with the senior DMK leader.
In strong observations, the court found the proceedings in the case as a "rudderless ship", saying had there not been judicial intervention, the "reluctant state" wanted to give a decent burial of cases against him.
"With over 2000 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 said.
The bench said, the other accused persons, in a way, technically they have committed a crime, but on a comparative analysis they are more victims than the accused, so prosecuting them would cause extreme inordinate delay.
Arguing on behalf of petitioner Y Balaji, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted, there are cases where grandmothers had to sell their jewellery so that their grandson would get a job. They should be tested as witnesses and not as accused.
The counsel said the best approach would be to ensure those who are the genuine accused such as the ex-Minister, his brother his personal assistant and the other people around him who solicited the money for job, they are treated as the prime accused.
The others, now arrayed as accused for giving bribe, a call can taken whether they are prime accused or whether they can be treated like witnesses, he said.
The counsel also sought a direction for appointment of a special public prosecutor.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, submitted that this court had earlier dealt with each submission made by the counsel and every prayer has been rejected by this court more than once, including the one for the appointment of a special public prosecutor.
"Certain persons were not made accused earlier, they moved heaven and earth and shouted from the rooftops that this is biased and this is a bad investigation. Now they cannot have it both ways," he contended.
The court, however, asked the state government to provide a complete list of accused with description.
"He is a powerful politician. Nothing wrong with being a powerful politician. Somebody who has public support. We are only concerned that in a case where some person who has held the position of the minister there are some bureaucrats or other affluent people who are facing trial there is a public perception that a prosecution through the government appointed public prosecutor may not alone be able to do justice," the bench said.
Singhvi, however, submitted this plea was earlier considered by the court. A special public prosecutor from outside of the state may, sometimes, can have a kind of a very negative impression and a meaning as if the state will not prosecute, he said.
The bench, however, told him, "We want from you clearly and definitely what is your prosecutorial plan. It seems to be a very rudderless ship. How would you achieve clubbing 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 it come from us? This thought never crossed your prosecutor's mind."
The bench also clarified these are tentative observations to enable the state government to enlighten the court about its prosecutorial plan.
The court also asked him to inform as to within what time it can finish the trial.
"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. We have no doubt that you will continue but what is wrong if some additional strength is infused in the form of special public prosecutor," the bench asked the counsel.
The court also asked the state government as to how many accused and witnesses were overlapping in the case and scheduled the matter for consideration on August 11, 2025.
"We want the list of accused. That is the biggest bottle neck. So we can see that how many of them are overlapping," the bench said.
The apex court had on July 29, 2025 rapped the Tamil Nadu government for attempting to delay the trial in cases involving Balaji by implicating more than 2,000 people as accused in a cash-for-jobs scam, saying it is a complete fraud on the judicial system.
The case concerned the period between 2011 and 2016 when Balaji held the post of Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu. While discharging his duties as a minister, he, in connivance with his personal assistant and his brother, allegedly collected large amounts by promising job opportunities to several person in various positions in the Transport Department.
He was arrested on June 14, 2023 in cases and was released on bail by this court on September 26, 2024.
