Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up an advocate, who represents an accused in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam, for filing a plea purportedly on behalf of the victims of the same scam in which former minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused.

The SLP, filed by an association called the Anti-Corruption Movement, challenged the orders of the Special Court for trial of cases related to MPs and MLAs in Tamil Nadu, which had clubbed multiple supplementary charge sheets with the main charge sheet in one of the corruption cases (predicate offence) related to the scam.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the plea and asked the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action against the lawyer.

“This petition is drafted by Mr. N Subramaniyam, representing Anti-Corruption Movement. This Anti-Corruption Movement is espousing the cause of the victims of the offence. Learned counsel Shri N Subramaniam admitted that he is representing accused no. 18. Apart from what is observed in the paragraph 17 of impugned judgement, it is obvious that the actions of the petitioner are not bonafide because the petitioner is being represented by advocate representing the accused. Therefore the SLP is dismissed. We direct that copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Secretary of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for appropriate action”, the Court stated.

During the hearing, Justice Oka asked, “This Anti-Corruption Movement is supporting the accused?”

When the lawyer replied in the negative, Justice Oka pressed further, “Then how can you appear? You are appearing for accused in the same case. And you are appearing for the Anti-Corruption Movement?”

Once the lawyer admitted that he was representing accused no. 18 in the trial, Justice Oka said, “We will refer the case to Bar Council and direct misconduct inquiry to be held against you…Here you are professing the case of victims by filing this petition. And you are representing the accused in the trial! What is all this going on? You have drafted it. Such petition has to be dismissed.”

The Court dismissed the SLP and directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for appropriate action.

The lawyer sought to distance himself from the matter, stating that he would get rid of the case and arrange for another counsel. He submitted that the petitioner should not be punished for engaging him. However, Justice Oka responded that the petitioner organization knowingly engaged him despite knowing that he represented an accused.

The matter was mentioned again after the lunch break by Advocate Pranav Sachdeva representing Subramaniam. He submitted that Subramaniam had a large practice and had been doing pro bono work in Chennai, and that the Court's observations could affect him.

Justice Oka noted, “We gave ample opportunity to him. Now we have passed an order.” He added, “We will record it then that he was acting in pro bono capacity representing victims at the same time and professional capacity representing the accused. First thing he should have said that he will withdraw from this matter and he will not appear in any case.”

Subramaniam interjected to state that he had specifically submitted that he would withdraw. Justice Oka asked, “Is that enough?” Sachdeva then requested that Subramaniam be allowed to apologise and withdraw from both cases.

Justice Oka said that Subramaniam must tender an unconditional apology for committing professional misconduct and give an undertaking that he would not appear in any matter connected to the case. The Anti-Corruption Movement must also file an affidavit through its authorised office bearers, undertaking that it would not file any proceedings concerning the offence in future.

“After these two affidavits are filed, you apply for recall then we will consider it”, Justice Oka said.

Background

The Madras High Court on March 28, 2025 dismissed four petitions filed by the Anti-Corruption Movement under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitions challenged trial court orders dated September 18 and October 1, 2024, which had directed the clubbing of four supplementary charge sheets filed in one of the cases related to fraudulent recruitment in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai.

The High Court upheld the clubbing of charge sheets, noting that all the offences formed part of the same transaction and could not be treated as distinct for the purpose of separate trials. It also noted that the same set of witnesses and documents were involved across all the supplementary charge sheets.

It held that conducting separate trials would delay proceedings as the witnesses and documents would have to be examined repeatedly in each case, and highlighted that the total number of accused stood at 2,202 out of which 423 have appeared.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 6885-6888/2025 Diary No. 19956 / 2025

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