 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns about the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) refusal to share investigation documents with the accused in a case. During a hearing on Wednesday, the court questioned the ED's stance that an accused cannot request access to all documents collected during an investigation, emphasizing the potential violation of fundamental rights. The judges emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair trial and argued that withholding crucial evidence could be a significant hindrance to the accused's right to a fair defense.
The bench, led by Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, expressed deep concern about the rigidity displayed by the ED in this matter. They questioned how the ED could justify denying access to documents on purely technical grounds, highlighting the potential for vital evidence to be concealed. The court pointed out the possibility of the ED possessing critical documents that could be crucial to the accused's defense but are being withheld, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Justice Oka further questioned the fairness of denying access to documents in a bail hearing, arguing that the context of the case and the potential for injustice must be considered. He pointed out the changing landscape of bail procedures, where increasingly stringent measures are being implemented, making it more difficult for accused individuals to secure bail. This, he argued, underscored the importance of ensuring transparency and access to evidence during bail hearings.
In response to the court's queries, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued that while there is no objection to providing documents, the accused cannot engage in a 'roving inquiry' based on assumptions. He suggested that the accused can access the list of documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, Justice Oka countered this argument, stating that in cases where the ED collects thousands of documents but only relies on a select few, the accused may not recall every document they require.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the technological advancements that allow for efficient digitization and scanning of large volumes of documents, making it easier for accused individuals to access the information they need. Despite this, ASG Raju maintained his stance, arguing that the accused should demonstrate the necessity and desirability of the documents they request. This stance, however, was met with skepticism by the court, with Justice Amanullah advocating for a broader interpretation of Section 91 of the CrPC to ensure a fair trial.
ASG Raju also expressed concerns that granting the accused access to documents before the trial could jeopardize the ongoing investigation. The court, however, responded by stating that the accused should not face any limitations in obtaining documents necessary for seeking bail once the chargesheet has been filed. The court further clarified that while only the documents included in the chargesheet can be considered during the stage of framing charges, this restriction does not apply to bail proceedings.
The court's stance underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need for effective investigation. While recognizing the importance of safeguarding the integrity of ongoing investigations, the court emphasized the critical role of transparency and access to evidence in ensuring a fair trial and protecting the rights of the accused. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the future of criminal justice proceedings in India, particularly regarding the balance between investigative powers and the rights of the accused.
Source: 'Will this be justice?': SC to ED on access to probe documents