ED cannot dictate public prosecutors’ court actions: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has established clear boundaries between the Enforcement Directorate’s investigative role and the independence of public prosecutors, ruling that while the ED can provide case-related facts, it cannot dictate how prosecutors conduct themselves in court.

In a significant ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasised the autonomy of public prosecutors while granting bail to two accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case.

“The Enforcement Directorate and its director can give instructions to public prosecutors on facts of the case. However, the Enforcement Directorate or its director cannot give any instructions to the public prosecutor about what he ought to do before the court as an officer of the court,” the bench stated. The court’s decision came while addressing a trial court’s earlier directive that had asked the ED director to instruct prosecutors not to oppose bail applications in cases delayed by the agency. The Supreme Court found this directive too restrictive, noting that prosecutors should retain their right to oppose bail in appropriate circumstances.

“This observation will not prevent public prosecutors from opposing a bail petition on the grounds that acts or omissions on the part of the Enforcement Directorate are not responsible for the delay of trial,” the bench clarified.

Justice Oka, while describing the trial court’s earlier directive as “drastic,” emphasised the fundamental duty of public prosecutors to maintain fairness in legal proceedings. “It is well settled that the public prosecutor has to be fair. If a case is covered by a binding precedent, it is his duty to point out the same to the court,” he noted.

The ruling came as the court granted bail to Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, considering their extended imprisonment and the unlikely prospect of an immediate trial.