SC issues notice to Centre on plea against 'retrospective' extension of ED Director's tenure
Feb 15, 2021
New Delhi [India], February 15 : The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging a decision of the Central government to "retrospectively extend" the tenure of Sanjay Kumar Mishra as the Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
A division bench of Justices Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat also issued notice to Mishra and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) along with the Centre on the plea and sought their responses.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner NGO 'Common Cause' submitted that Mishra could not have been given any extension since he had already superannuated and such illegal extensions have an effect of destroying the supposed independence of the office of ED Director.
The plea, filed by NGO Common Cause, sought the quashing the Office Order dated November 13, 2020, issued by Centre retrospectively amending the tenure of Mishra, and further sought a direction to the Central government to appoint a Director of Enforcement Directorate in a transparent manner and strictly in accordance with the mandate of Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, 2003.
Mishra was appointed Director of ED for two years by an order dated November 19, 2018. However, the Central government on November 13, 2020, issued an office order in which it was stated that the President has modified the 2018 order to the effect that a period of two years written in the 2018 order dated was modified to a period of three years.
"Thus, by virtue of the impugned Office Order, dated November 13, 2020, the appointment order dated November 19, 2018, has been modified with retrospective effect and Sanjay Kumar Mishra herein has been given an additional one year of service as Director of Enforcement in the Enforcement Directorate," the plea said.
It further said that there is neither any enabling provision in the CVC Act for extension of service of the Director of Enforcement nor any enabling provision which provides for such retrospective modification of appointment orders.
The NGO has contended that after the end of Mishra's two-year tenure as Director, Enforcement Directorate, he would have been ineligible for appointment to the said post again by virtue of Section 25 of the CVC Act. It contended that what could not have been done directly under the CVC Act has been done indirectly by the Central Government, which the NGO said is nothing but illegal.
