SC Says “ED Can’t Dictate Public Prosecutors’ Court Actions”

The Supreme Court on Thursday has reiterated the independence of public prosecutors in the judicial process, clarifying that while the Enforcement Directorate and its director may provide factual guidance in a money laundering case, they can’t direct prosecutors on how to present their case in court.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih, made this statement while granting bail to Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, who had been arrested in connection with the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The court observed that their prolonged detention was unjustified, especially since the trial was unlikely to commence in the near future.

The court’s ruling clarified the role of public prosecutors, emphasizing that they are officers of the court, and therefore, should not be influenced by external bodies, including investigative agencies. In response to a lower court’s earlier instruction for the ED’s director to direct prosecutors not to oppose bail requests when the delay in the trial was due to the ED, the Supreme Court emphasized the limits of such instructions.

“We recognize that the Enforcement Directorate and its director can instruct prosecutors on the facts of the case. However, they cannot dictate how a public prosecutor should act before the court, as the prosecutor is an officer of the court,” the bench stated.

The bench also noted that the trial court’s directive should not restrict prosecutors from opposing bail applications in situations where trial delays are not the fault of the ED. The ruling highlighted that fairness and transparency are fundamental in the role of a public prosecutor.

The trial court had earlier criticized the ED for its role in delaying the trial, especially in connection with the bail granted to another accused, Kausar Imam Siddiqui. Justice Oka acknowledged that while the trial court’s order may have been “drastic,” the role of the prosecutor is to be fair and act with integrity.

“It is well settled that a public prosecutor must be fair. If there is binding precedent, it is their duty to bring it to the court’s attention. Perhaps the special judge intended to suggest that when the prosecutor recognizes that trial delays were caused by the ED, they should take a fair stand,” Justice Oka remarked.

In this case, the Supreme Court reinforced the point that prosecutors must be able to act impartially, free from influence by the ED or any other agency. The ruling ensures that prosecutors have the freedom to oppose bail if they believe that the delays in the trial were not caused by the ED’s actions.

This decision strengthens the principle that public prosecutors must maintain independence, upholding the integrity of the legal process and ensuring justice is administered fairly.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International