Supreme Court holds Two Extension of Tenure to ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra as Illegal: Can Continue in Post only Till July 31st [Read Order]
Supreme – Court – holds – Two – Extension – Tenure – ED – Director – Sanjay – Kumar – Mishra – Illegal – TAXSCAN
Supreme – Court – holds – Two – Extension – Tenure – ED – Director – Sanjay – Kumar – Mishra – Illegal – TAXSCAN
The Supreme Court of India held that two extensions of tenure to Enforcement Directorate director Sanjay Kumar Mishra as illegal and directed him to continue in the post only till July 31 st
Dr Jaya Thakur, filed an application seeking directions like certiorari for quashing the order passed by respondent No.1 for further extension of tenure of respondent No.2. The petitions also challenge the validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021.
Respondent No.2-Sanjay Kumar Mishra, who was the Principal Special Director in the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) was appointed as Director of Enforcement for a period of two years from the date of his assumption of charge of the post or until further orders, whichever was earlier, vide order dated 19th November 2018.
This Court though dismissed the said Writ Petition, yet directed that no further extension shall be granted to respondent No.2.
Since Parliament was not in session, the President of India promulgated the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, thereby inserting two new provisos to Section 25(d) of the CVC Act.
Mr Anoop G. Choudhary, Mr Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel, Mr Prashant Bhushan, Mr J.S. Sinha, and Mr Sharangowda, counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General and Mr S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India, and Ms Vanshaja Shukla, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
In the present case also, we may point out that in Common Cause (2021), this Court had not struck down any law, but had issued a mandamus which was binding on the parties before it. 112. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala and others25. 113.
A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol held that orders dated 17th November 2021 and 17th November 2022 granting extensions to respondent No.2 are not valid in law, we are inclined to take into consideration the concern expressed by the Union of India about FATF review.
Further stated that the process of appointing the Director of Enforcement is likely to take some time. In that view of the matter, to ensure the transition is smooth in the larger public interest, it will be appropriate to permit respondent No.2 to continue to be in office till the 31st of July 2023.
“The impugned orders dated 17th November 2021 and 17th November 2022 granting extensions to the tenure of respondent No.2- Sanjay Kumar Mishra for a period of one year each are held to be illegal. The writ petitions are partly allowed to that extent. However, respondent No.2- Sanjay Kumar Mishra is permitted to continue to hold office till 31st July 2023.”, the Coram held.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
