ED can instruct public prosecutor only on facts, not on arguments to make in court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently clarified that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can instruct a Public Prosecutor on the facts of a case, it cannot instruct Public Prosecutors on how to argue a case or what to do or not do as an officer of the court [Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement]..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih made the observation in a case where it had noticed a special court's direction to the ED to instruct prosecutors not to oppose a bail plea if it is found that the trial has been delayed because of the ED's conduct. The Supreme Court observed that the special court likely meant to say that the ED should ask prosecutors to be fair in their submissions if there is a delay in trial. However, the Bench added that this cannot be construed to mean that a Public Prosecutor is prevented from opposing the bail plea if it is found that the ED is not at fault. "Enforcement Directorate or its Director can give instructions to a Public Prosecutor on facts of the case. However, Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot give any directions or instructions to the Public Prosecutor about what he ought to do or ought not to do before the Court as an officer of the Court," the Court added in its December 11 order..The case before the Court concerned Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir (appellants), two of those accused in a money-laundering case in which Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan is the main accused.The ED had claimed that Amanatullah Khan purchased immovable properties in the name of benamidars, that is, Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir by concealing and suppressing the actual amount paid.On December 11, the top court granted Haider and Daud bail after noting that the two accused had been in custody for over a year without charges being framed in the money laundering case against them. .Notably, back in November, while granting bail to a co-accused, a Delhi court had rapped ED for causing a delay of about five months in the trial.The trial court had taken critical note that although the ED had an opportunity to admit its responsibility for violating the fundamental right of speedy trial by not opposing bail, it had opted to oppose the bail application with full vigor and vehemence.The special court, therefore, added the following parting note:"It is expected of Worthy Director that he shall issue appropriate instructions to the Ld. SPP’s not to oppose the bail plea where the delay of trial has been occasioned due to the conduct of ED.”This too drew the attention of the Supreme Court while considering the bail pleas by Haider and Daud. .The top court proceeded to clarify that the trial court's observations should not be interpreted to mean that the ED can dictate how Public Prosecutors should conduct themselves in court. "Perhaps what the learned Judge intended to was that when the Public Prosecutor is satisfied that the trial has been delayed on account of default or conduct on the part of Enforcement Directorate, the Public Prosecutor should take a fair stand. However, the aforesaid observations will not prevent Public Prosecutors from opposing a bail petition on the ground that act or omissions on the part of Enforcement Directorate are not responsible for the delay of trial," the Court said..Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri, advocates Rajat Bhardwaj, Ankita M Bhardwaj, Kaustubh Khanna, Saurav Kekroda, Arveen Sekhon, Rishi Sehgal, Muskan Khurana, Sudhir Naagar, Manish Baidwan, Arun Kumar Nagar and Ankit Sharma, appeared for the appellants, Haider and Daud. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj Kumar, Vivek Gurnani, Sushil Raaja, Samrat Goswami, Animesh Upadhyay, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Aditi Singh, Anand Kirti and Deepika Gahlot, appeared for ED..[Read Order]