The Supreme Court has withdrawn its earlier direction for disciplinary action against Advocate N Subramaniam in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam case, following his unconditional apology and assurance not to appear in related matters.
On May 9, the Court had ordered the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take suitable action against the lawyer for professional misconduct. The issue arose because Subramaniam had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Movement, even though he was also representing Accused No. 18 in the same case.
However, during the latest hearing, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan accepted an affidavit from Subramaniam, in which he admitted his mistake and submitted an undertaking. In light of this, the Court deleted the portion of the earlier order directing disciplinary action.
“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,” the Court stated.
The Court was addressing an application by the Anti-Corruption Movement challenging the May 9 dismissal of its SLP. The petition questioned the clubbing of supplementary charge sheets with the main charge sheet in the scam case.
Read Also: Supreme Court Orders Uniform Pay and Allowances for Consumer Commission Members Across India
Previously, the bench had criticized the lawyer's dual representation, stating it affected the credibility of the petition.
“The petition was not bonafide as it was being filed by a lawyer representing an accused in the same matter,” the Court had observed.
During the latest proceedings, Justice Oka asked why such an application was filed when only an undertaking was permitted. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that they didn’t have the full order and were only concerned about the Court’s critical remarks.
“He has done a lot of work in the Supreme Court and High Court. The matter regarding the lawyer can be laid to rest,” Sankarnarayanan submitted.
Justice Oka noted, “He continued to argue even when we gave a chance. He should have apologized immediately.”
Sankarnarayanan replied that the lawyer did not anticipate the reaction and had since apologized.
Although the Court agreed to recall the direction to the Bar Council, it denied permission to withdraw the SLP and refused to remove the observations questioning the petitioner’s bonafides.
Earlier, on March 28, the Madras High Court had dismissed four petitions filed by the Anti-Corruption Movement under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court supported the clubbing of the charge sheets, citing that the offences were part of the same transaction and involved common witnesses and documents.
“We dispose of this application. However, we make it clear that we have rejected prayer A made in the application,” the Supreme Court concluded.
Case no. – MA 944-947/2025
Case Title – Anti Corruption Movement v. State Represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police
