CASE NAME: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court has made it clear that although the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can give public prosecutors advice on the case’s facts, it cannot give them advice on how to present their case or what they should or shouldn’t do in their capacity as court officers.In a case where it had observed a special court’s order to the ED to urge prosecutors not to oppose a bail plea if it is determined that the trial has been delayed due to the ED’s actions, a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih made the observation. The Supreme Court noted that the special court most likely intended to state that in the event of a trial delay, the ED should request that prosecutors be fair in their submissions. The Bench clarified, nevertheless, that if it is determined that the ED is not at fault, this does not preclude the Public Prosecutor from contesting the bail request.
A Public Prosecutor may get instructions from the Enforcement Directorate or its Director regarding the case’s facts. But the Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot tell the Public Prosecutor what he should or shouldn’t do in front of the court as a court officer,” the Court stated in its order dated December 11.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan is the primary accused in a money-laundering case involving Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir (appellants), which was before the court. According to the ED, Amanatullah Khan concealed and suppressed the true amount paid in order to buy real estate in the names of benamidars, namely Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir. After observing that Haider and Daud had been detained for more than a year without any charges being brought against them in the money laundering case, the highest court granted them bail on December 11.
Notably, in November, a Delhi court chastised the ED for causing the trial to be delayed by around five months while giving bail to a co-accused. The trial court noted that the ED had the chance to acknowledge that it had violated the fundamental right to a quick trial by not opposing bail, but instead it chose to vigorously and vehemently fight the bail application. As a result, the special court included the following closing statement: “The Worthy Director is expected to give the Ld. SPPs the proper instructions not to contest the bail plea in cases where the ED’s actions caused the trial to be delayed.”
The Supreme Court took notice of this as well when evaluating Haider and Daud’s bail requests. The highest court went on to make it clear that the trial court’s findings should not be taken as permission for the ED to control public prosecutors’ actions in court. It’s possible that the learned judge meant for the public prosecutor to take a fair stance when they are convinced that the Enforcement Directorate’s actions or default caused the trial to be postponed. Nevertheless, Public Prosecutors may still challenge a bail request on the grounds that the Enforcement Directorate’s actions or inactions are not to blame for the trial’s delay, the Court said.