In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) authority and the autonomy of Public Prosecutors in court. The bench emphasized that while the ED can provide factual instructions, it cannot dictate courtroom strategy or influence how prosecutors present their arguments.
The judgment came during the hearing of a case involving Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, co-accused in a high-profile money laundering investigation linked to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan. The ED had alleged that Khan concealed funds by purchasing properties under false names, implicating Haider and Nasir as facilitators. Despite these allegations, the two accused were granted bail after spending over a year in custody without formal charges being framed.
The Supreme Court clarified remarks made earlier by a special court, which had urged the ED to ensure fair conduct by its prosecutors, especially in instances where delays in trial stem from the agency’s actions. The apex court noted that while fairness is paramount, this directive should not be misinterpreted as a blanket prohibition against opposing bail petitions.
“Public Prosecutors must remain independent officers of the court. While they may consider delays caused by the ED in their submissions, they are not obligated to align their arguments with the agency’s preferences,” the Court stated. The bench added that prosecutors should assess each case on its merits and ensure their actions uphold justice.
This decision also reflects the Supreme Court’s broader stance on safeguarding the right to a speedy trial, a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Delays attributed to investigative agencies have increasingly come under scrutiny, with courts stressing accountability and procedural fairness.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between investigative agencies and the judiciary, reinforcing the independence of legal officers while holding enforcement bodies accountable for procedural lapses.
