Chennai: Seven months after the then DMK government refused to grant prosecution sanction to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the cash-for-job scam case against its minister V Senthilbalaji and others, the federal agency has again written to chief secretary M Sai Kumar, seeking a nod from the state to prosecute the ex-minister.
The three-page communication, dated May 15, said its earlier prosecution sanction request dated May 14, 2025, addressed to then Governor R N Ravi, was returned on Feb 23 this year, on directions from state government. The then chief secretary informed the governor in October 2025 that the state government alone was the competent authority to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant and that the ED should have written to the chief secretary directly instead of approaching the governor.
Now, the ED has enclosed all relevant evidence along with a secret note on investigation and a copy of the prosecution complaint in a pen-drive handed over with the fresh letter. The communication has been duly received and acknowledged by the office of the chief secretary.
Details of the Cash-for-Jobs Scam
The alleged cash-for-jobs scam in the transport department took place between 2011 and 2016 when Senthilbalaji was the transport minister. The ED registered a case against Senthilbalaji, his brother R V Ashok Kumar, and personal assistants B Shanmugam and M Karthikeyan on charges of money-laundering, and accused them of illegal gratification from candidates seeking employment in the transport department. Senthilbalaji was arrested by the ED in the case in June 2023.
While Senthilbalaji was released on bail by the Supreme Court in September 2024, the ED filed a prosecution complaint against him before the special court for PMLA cases in the city. The trial is yet to begin as sanction from the state government is pending since he was the minister at the time of commission of the offence.
Current Status and Next Steps
The ED's renewed request underscores the legal tussle over jurisdiction. The state government had earlier asserted its sole authority to grant sanction for prosecuting public servants. With the fresh letter, the agency has provided comprehensive evidence, including a secret investigation note and the prosecution complaint, on a digital storage device. The chief secretary's office has acknowledged receipt, but no decision has been announced yet.
This case highlights the complexities of prosecuting former ministers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), where state consent is required for actions against public servants. The outcome will set a precedent for similar cases involving political figures.
