E-Paper
SC notice to Centre on pleas challenging ED, CBI chiefs’ tenure extension
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana issued notice to the Centre on petitions filed by Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala and Trinamool Congress (TMC) leaders Mohua Moitra and Saket Gokhale among others
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre’s response on a clutch of petitions challenging the ordinances brought by the government to extend the tenure of the heads of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) up to five years. The matter has been kept for hearing after 10 days.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana issued notice on the petitions challenging the November 15, 2021 ordinance by which amendments were made to the Central Vigilance Commission Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act governing the appointment of CBI and ED chiefs. The present ordinance amended Section 25 of the CVC Act, which governs the appointment and tenure of ED director.
The petitions, filed among others by Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala and Trinamool Congress (TMC) leaders Mohua Moitra and Saket Gokhale, alleged that the amendments have been brought to provide extension to ED director Sanjay Kumar Mishra, an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer of the 1984 batch, who was initially appointed in November 2018 for a fixed two year tenure. However, the Centre granted him a one-year extension till November 2021 that was challenged before the Supreme Court by NGO Common Cause.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Surjewala told the court that ED administers not just offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA) but also the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). He pointed out that unlike the appointment of the CBI director, the selection of ED director under Section 25 of the CVC Act is done by a committee headed by chief vigilance commissioner, vigilance commissioners and bureaucrats. “It is an important question to be gone into as who appoints ED director as all representatives are from executive,” Singhvi said.
On September 8 last year, the top court held that Mishra should not be given any further extension and refused to interfere with the decision granting him extension, realising that his tenure was getting over in November 2021. The petitions alleged that the recent ordinance was in violation of the SC judgment and should be struck down.
The Centre, while arguing against Common Cause petition, defended the extension granted to Mishra as his continuation was crucial to certain pending investigations in trans-border crimes.
Advocate ML Sharma, who too has filed a petition on the same issue, told the court that the amendments under challenge were passed without any voting in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha and the same cannot be treated as having been passed. Senior advocate Gopal Shankarnaraynan representing another petitioner in the bunch of cases told the court that Mishra will complete four years in office in November this year and the petitioners apprehend the government will grant another extension.
In its September 2021 judgment, the top court held, “We do not intend to interfere with the extension of tenure of the second respondent (Mishra) in the instant case for the reason that his tenure is coming to an end in November, 2021. We make it clear that no further extension shall be granted to the second respondent”.
One of the pleas filed by Congress Mahila Congress Committee general secretary Jaya Thakur said, “The respondent (Union of India) passed the CVC (Amendment) Act 2021 with a sole purpose to give benefit to respondent 2 (Sanjay Kumar Mishra).” The plea, filed in June this year, against the backdrop of ED summons to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, said, “The Ministry of Finance is using the enforcement agencies against the Indian National Congress (INC) party’s president and their office bearer.”
