The Supreme Court reacted sharply on February 27 that it is not concerned with politics when the government claimed that the opposition to the “piecemeal” tenure extensions granted to Enforcement Directorate Director S.K. Mishra is by representatives of political parties who are trying to subvert ongoing investigations against their leaders.
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar said the top court, in a judgment in September 2021, had specifically said there would be no further extensions for Mr. Mishra.
However, the government, within two months of the judgment, made amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act by way of promulgation of an ordinance in November 2021. These amendments had paved the way for the government to stretch Mr. Mishra’s tenure by a year till November 2022. On the strength of these changes, the government had again given the 1984-batch Indian Revenue Service officer his third extension in November 2022. He is expected to continue till November 18, 2023.
The petitions filed by Congress party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala, Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, social activist and General Secretary of Madhya Pradesh Congress Mahila Committee Jaya Thakur have argued that the “piecemeal” extensions affect “institutional independence”.
“All the petitions have been filed by people whose party leaders are facing serious charges,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted.
ALSO REFER | Supreme Court issues notice to govt. on ED Director’s tenure extension
He said the petitions were filed on the basis of personal motive and oblique interest.
“We are not about politics here,” the Court responded.
The Court’s amicus curiae, senior advocate K.V. Vishwanathan, said that this case did not concern just one officer. He said the larger issue was to “protect or insulate the institution from the executive”.
“The Union claims there is an amendment to the CVC Act, and there is an extension given on November 17, 2021. My submission is keeping in line the long line of judgments in Vineet Narain, Common Cause cases. The extensions are illegal,” he submitted.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for one of the petitioners, asked the Court if “piecemeal extensions impinge on the independence of the person himself”.
“What is being done is the exact reverse of the fixity of tenure upheld in the statute itself… This shows the government telling the officer ‘unless you do my bidding…’” Mr. Singhvi submitted.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for petitioners, said “like this, he will go on till he is 95!”
Senior advocate Anoop Chaudhary, also for the petitioners, said the extensions amount to a “nullification of the Court’s judgment”.
“Everyday he continues in office is a direct violation and defiance of this order,” Mr. Chaudhary said.
The Court listed the case for detailed hearing on March 21 at 2 p.m.
