In a sharp rebuke, the Supreme Court directed the Bar Council to act against a lawyer for representing both an accused and a petitioner in the Tamil Nadu scam case.
News Desk, New Delhi, 12-May:The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on a lawyer who appeared to represent both sides in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam — the victims through a public interest plea and an accused in the ongoing trial, raising serious questions about professional conduct and conflict of interest.
The lawyer, N. Subramaniam, who is defending Accused No. 18 in the scam involving former minister Senthil Balaji, had also filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) on behalf of an organisation named Anti-Corruption Movement, supposedly representing the victims of the same offence. The petition challenged orders by the Special Court for MPs/MLAs in Tamil Nadu, which had consolidated supplementary charge sheets with the main one in the case.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the plea, questioning the credibility of the petition and directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to consider disciplinary action.
“It is obvious the actions of the petitioner are not bonafide. The same advocate is representing the accused in the trial and now appears on behalf of the victims. This cannot be permitted,” the bench remarked.
During the hearing, Justice Oka grilled Subramaniam, asking, “How can you appear for the victims when you’re already defending an accused in the same case?” The bench found the explanation unsatisfactory and said such conduct amounts to professional misconduct.
Subramaniam attempted to withdraw from the matter and distance himself, saying he would arrange another counsel. However, the Court noted that the Anti-Corruption Movement knowingly engaged him despite his conflicting role.
Later in the day, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, appearing on behalf of Subramaniam, sought leniency, citing Subramaniam’s history of pro bono work in Chennai. But the Court stood firm, stating that he should have immediately withdrawn upon recognising the conflict.
Justice Oka added, “First thing he should have done was withdraw. An apology now is not enough.” The Court laid out conditions for any possible recall of the order — both Subramaniam and the Anti-Corruption Movement must file affidavits: the former offering an unconditional apology and committing to withdraw from all related matters, and the latter pledging not to file further petitions on the issue.
Background of the Case:
The controversy stems from petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Madras High Court, challenging orders from the trial court dated September 18 and October 1, 2024.
The trial court had ordered the clubbing of four supplementary charge sheets related to the scam in recruitment at Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai. The Madras High Court, in a ruling dated March 28, 2025, upheld this clubbing, noting that all offences were part of a single transaction involving overlapping witnesses and documents.
It also pointed out the scale of the case — out of 2,202 accused, only 423 had appeared, and holding separate trials would delay justice due to repetitive examination of the same evidence.
This development adds another twist to the unfolding legal drama around the scam involving political and bureaucratic players in Tamil Nadu. You can read more updates from our National News and Legal Helpline sections.
For regular legal insights and updates, follow our YouTube channel.
In House Development | The Legal Observer
