Senthilbalaji job racket case: Madras HC directs police to respond to plea against clubbing of chargesheets

The Madras High Court directed the Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB) police to file its counter affidavit to a plea made against the clubbing of four supplementary chargesheets filed by it in a job racketing case pending against Electricity Minister V. Senthilbalaji.

The Madras High Court on Thursday (February 27, 2025) directed the Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB) police to file its counter affidavit to a plea made against the clubbing of four supplementary chargesheets filed by it in a job racketing case pending against Electricity Minister V. Senthilbalaji.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan asked Government Advocate (criminal side) K.M.D. Muhilan to ensure the counter affidavit was filed by March 13, 2025. The judge also refrained from passing any interim order by stating he was adjourning the matter only by a fortnight and nothing adverse would happen by then before the trial court.

Anti Corruption Movement, a private organisation, had approached the High Court against the decision taken by a Special Court, for cases against Members of Parliament and that of the Legislative Assembly, to club all four supplementary chargesheets.

Explaining the reasons for opposing the clubbing of chargesheets, the petitioner organisation said, the first supplementary chargesheet was with respect to alleged corrupt practices in the appointment of Assistant Engineers in State Transport Corporations when Mr. Senthilbalaji served as Transport Minister in former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s Cabinet.

That chargesheet had listed out 74 individuals as accused and 112 witnesses. The second chargesheet related to the appointment of Junior Tradesmen had also listed out many accused and 287 witnesses. The third chargesheet pertaining to the appointment of bus conductors had 928 accused and 151 witnesses.

The fourth chargesheet filed in connection with alleged irregularities in the appointment of bus drivers had 920 accused and many witnesses. If all the four chargesheets were clubbed together, the number of accused would increase to 2,256 and the number of witnesses would shoot up to over 668, the organisation complained.

“If these many accused and witnesses have to be examined as well as cross-examined, then it would take 1,500 years for the trial to be completed. Therefore, it is essential that the four supplementary chargesheets are not clubbed together,” the petitioner’s counsel argued.