Today(4th September),The Supreme Court of India discussed the accused’s right to access documents collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during investigations. Justices Oka, Amanullah, and Masih questioned whether denying such access on technical grounds violates constitutional rights under Article 21.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(4th September), the Supreme Court of India engaged in a detailed discussion addressing the rights of the accused in seeking documents gathered by investigative agencies, particularly the Enforcement Directorate (ED), during the investigation process.
The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, raised critical questions regarding whether an accused can be denied access to documents on technical grounds, emphasizing the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21.
Supreme Court Questions ED’s Denial of Documents
The Court directly questioned the ED’s stance that accused individuals cannot request “each and every document” collected during the investigation process.
Justice Oka, leading the bench, remarked-
“ED might have a crucial document, but if it’s not provided to the accused after the chargesheet is filed, does this not infringe on his rights under Article 21?”
The bench pointed out the evolution in judicial approaches to bail and accused rights, urging that courts and investigative agencies must not remain rigid when it comes to furnishing crucial documents to the accused.
“Given that this is a bail case, we must consider how document protection standards have evolved. Both we and the advocates aim to achieve justice. Can we be so inflexible that we deny access to documents in a case where the person is already facing prosecution? Is this just? While some serious cases still see bail granted, others are denied even at the Magistrate level. Times are changing—should we, as a bench, remain so rigid?”
-Justice Oka remarked.
The case being heard revolves around a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with the accused seeking deficient or illegible documents from the ED. A detailed discussion took place between the Court and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, who represented the ED. The central question was whether the accused, at the bail stage, has the right to demand documents collected during the investigation.
ASG Raju, while defending the ED’s stance, argued that while he wasn’t opposed to supplying necessary documents, the accused could not demand documents based on assumptions or engage in what he termed a “roving enquiry.”
“He has the list,”
-Raju emphasized, indicating that the accused is aware of the documents and can request them under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“Unless it is ‘necessary’ and ‘desirable’, he cannot seek any documents. He has the list,”
-Raju reiterated.
The Court observed that, with modern technological advancements, documents running into thousands of pages can be scanned and made available quickly, countering the ED’s argument that providing access could lead to delays.
“There is no thought of delaying the trial,”
-noted the bench.
However, ASG Raju maintained that the accused must first demonstrate that the document is necessary for trial.
ALSO READ: [Right to Privacy] Sharing Google Pin as Bail Condition Violates Article 21: Supreme Court
Justice Oka Challenges ED’s Position
The Court pressed further on how the accused can determine a document’s necessity without first viewing it.
“How can he determine if the document is necessary and desirable without first seeing it?”
– questioned Justice Oka, further illustrating the dilemma faced by the accused.
Broader Application of Section 91 CrPC
Justice Amanullah chimed in, arguing for a broader interpretation of Section 91 of the CrPC, ensuring that accused individuals have access to seized documents at any stage of the legal process.
“If a document is seized, the accused must receive a copy. Section 91 applies at any stage, so if one accused gets the document, others must also be provided with it.”
– he clarified.
ASG Raju raised concerns that granting early access to documents could compromise ongoing investigations, especially in cases involving terrorism or complex financial crimes.
“At the start of the trial, he certainly has the right under Section 91. If he already has the document, what is the purpose of requesting it?”
-he argued.
Court Acknowledges ED’s Concerns but Prioritizes Fair Trial
While the Court acknowledged the concerns presented by ASG Raju, it emphasized that after the chargesheet has been filed, there should be no unnecessary restriction on the accused in accessing any document needed for the purpose of securing bail.
“The only concern might be if he requests the document during the investigation. The Court can decide by consulting the investigative body about the document.”
-observed the bench.
Raju conceded that this approach could be acceptable, noting-
“I have no issue with that. However, in cases like terrorism, where a person might be aware that there are no documents against him but there may be against others, how would this process work?”
Justice Oka responded, reiterating that the decision on whether or not the accused should have access to documents must ultimately rest with the Court. Let court decide whether it is correct or not. For court to come to conclusion whether he is entitled to bail, he needs documents. Let court decide.
ASG Raju held firm on his position that the right to access documents under Section 91 arises only at trial when the document is proven to be “necessary and desirable.” He clarified that documents not relied upon by the prosecution can only be inspected at the trial stage, not before.
Justice Oka, however, pointed out that at the stage of framing of charges, only documents included in the chargesheet can be reviewed. But this restriction should not apply at the bail stage. “If he wants to rely on documents for the purpose in the case of bail or quashing, he has the right to do so,” the judge stated.
Raju contended that no such right exists, asserting that an accused cannot introduce documents during bail proceedings. He argued that allowing access to every document would result in unnecessary delays through a “roving enquiry.“
“If the accused requests a specific document that he believes can exonerate him, that’s acceptable. However, he cannot ask for all documents indiscriminately, as this could delay the trial. He should be able to identify and request specific documents to the court.”
-said Raju.
As the legal discussions continued, the Supreme Court made it clear that its focus was on the legal question surrounding the accused’s right to seek documents, rather than the specifics of the ongoing case.
“We are not examining the facts; we are addressing the legal question of the accused’s right to request documents. We will determine the appropriate course of action based on that.”
-Justice Oka stated.
Senior Advocates R Basant and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the accused-appellants, also presented their arguments before the Court reserved its judgment.
