Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday recalled a portion of its May 9 order that had directed the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action against Advocate N Subramaniam for professional misconduct in connection with the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam case.

On May 9, the Court had pulled up Advocate Subramaniam for filing the SLP on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Movement while representing accused no. 18 in the trial related to the same case.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that it had received an affidavit from Advocate N Subramaniam, in which he admitted to his mistake and gave an undertaking that he will not appear in any case related to the scam.

“We delete the direction issued in order dated 9th May 2024 for forwarding copy of the order to Secretary of the Bar Council of State of Tamil Nadu for appropriate action by deleting only that part of the order dated 9th May 2025,” the Court ordered.

The Court was hearing an application filed by the petitioner organisation Anti-Corruption Movement against the May 9 order which had dismissed its SLP challenging the clubbing of supplementary charge sheets with the main charge sheet in one of the cheating and corruption cases related to the scam.

The Court had earlier dismissed the SLP and criticised Subramaniam, who represented the petitioner, for simultaneously representing an accused in the trial proceedings. The bench had remarked that the actions of the petitioner were not bonafide as it was being represented by a lawyer appearing for an accused in the same case.

During Monday's hearing, Justice Oka questioned the need for the application. “Why has the petitioner filed this application against the dismissal order? We only allowed the lawyer to file an undertaking that he will not appear in any case related to this,” he said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that they did not have a copy of the order while filing the application. “What we understood was that remarks have been made by the court regarding the order and we only want those comments to go,” he said.

Referring to Subramaniam, Sankarnarayanan added, “He has done a lot of work in Supreme Court and the High Court. The matter as far as the lawyer is concerned can lie down.”

Justice Oka responded, “He continued to argue even when we gave chance. Immediately he should have apologized.”

Sankarnarayanan said, “Perhaps due to shock he did not anticipate it. He thought it was a benign application. He didn't tell the petitioner that he represents the accused. He has apologized now.”

The Court recalled its direction to forward the order to the Bar Council for appropriate action but refused to grant the prayer in the application permitting the petitioner to withdraw the SLP. “We dispose of this application. However, we make it clear that we have rejected the prayer A made in the application by the petitioner in the SLP.”

When Sankarnarayanan submitted that the remarks against the bonafides of the organisation would be harmful, the Court refused to remove the observations made against the petitioner.

On May 9, the Court had observed that the petition was not bonafide and dismissed it with a direction to send a copy of the order to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take action against the lawyer.

Subramaniam had then submitted that he would withdraw from the matter and had not informed the petitioner of his representation of an accused. The Court asked him to file an unconditional apology and an undertaking not to appear in any related case and also asked the petitioner to file an affidavit stating that it would not file further proceedings concerning the offence.

The Madras High Court had earlier, on March 28, dismissed four petitions filed by the Anti-Corruption Movement under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the clubbing of charge sheets in the cash-for-jobs case. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the offences were part of the same transaction and involved common witnesses and documents.

Case no. – MA 944-947/2025

Case Title – Anti Corruption Movement v. State Represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police