In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has delineated the boundaries of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) influence over its prosecutors in court, emphasizing the independence of public prosecutors as officers of the court. The court declared that while the ED and its director can instruct prosecutors on case facts, they must not dictate courtroom conduct.
This directive was part of a judgment issued by Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih, which also involved granting bail to Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir. These individuals are implicated in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The justices voiced concern over their prolonged incarceration and the apparent distant prospect of trial commencement.
The clarification on the ED’s limits was prompted by a trial court’s earlier request that the ED director instruct prosecutors not to oppose bail if delays were caused by the agency itself. The Supreme Court found this directive overly broad and potentially restrictive of prosecutor discretion, especially in cases where the ED was not at fault for trial delays.
Justice Oka critiqued the trial court’s previous directive as “drastic,” yet he reinforced the expectation that public prosecutors conduct themselves fairly and transparently in the courtroom. He articulated the professional duty of prosecutors to acknowledge binding precedents and to maintain impartiality, especially when ED-related delays influence case proceedings.
