NEW DELHI: Observing that trial in cash-for-job scam, in which former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji is being prosecuted, could be the most mammoth trial in the country with over 2,000 accused, Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the state to place before it a prosecutorial plan on how to go about the case and said that it may consider appointing a special public prosecutor in the case.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the state to submit a complete list of accused and witnesses in the corruption cases and said “with over 2,000 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.”It asked govt why it did not filter accused on the basis of their marginal or prime culpability in the case. It said that the bribe givers, though technically also committed a crime, are effectively victims and prosecuting such a large number of people would cause extreme inordinate delay.“We want to know what your prosecutorial plan is. It seems to be a very rudderless ship with 2,000 odd accused, 500 odd witnesses. How would you achieve clubbing? We gave a suggestion that you see the accused 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 asked the state govt.Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the complainants, said that the prosecution should identify the prime accused namely the minister, his brother, his personal assistant, and others who solicited bribes and rest be treated as witnesses.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the state govt, opposed the appointment of a special public prosecutor as the court had already rejected the prayer and told the court to hear him before making its mind on appointing SPP in the case. He said that there had been no allegations against the present public prosecutor who is discharging his duties.The bench, however, said that appointment of SPP would dispel any wrong public perception about the trial as a former minister and bureaucrats were involved in the case.“He is a powerful politician. Nothing wrong with being a powerful politician. Somebody who has public support. Only concern is 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 govt appointed public prosecutor may not alone be able to do justice,” the bench said.
