Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Central government’s extension of tenure to the current Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED), Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
The petition challenged the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021, which allows the ED director’s term extension up to 5 years.
The petitioner challenges the order issued by the Central government on November 17, 2021 to extend the term of the ED Director by one more year.
The plea said the Central government’s decision to extend Mishra’s tenure was in violation of the Top Court’s September 2021 verdict which ruled out more extensions to Mishra.
The Apex Court had upheld the Central government’s earlier decision dated November 13, 2020, which had made retrospective changes to the appointment order of Mishra by which his tenure was increased from two years to three years.
Mishra was initially appointed as the ED Director in November 2018 for a period of 2 years which was schedule to end in November 2020. He had already reached the retirement age of 60 years in May 2020.
However, the Central government on November 13, 2020 issued an order in which it was stated that the President has modified the 2018 order to the effect that a period of 2 years was modified to 3 years.
The Central government has powers to make retrospective changes but it should be done only in the rarest of rare cases, the Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai had said in September 2021. While the court had also said that the tenure of Mishra which was set to expire, cannot be extended further.
After the Supreme Court’s decision last year, the Central government had brought in an ordinance amending the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, empowering itself to extend the tenure of the ED Director up to five years.
This has now been challenged by Thakur in the plea filed through advocate Varun Thakur. In April this year, activist and national spokesperson of the All India Trinamool Congress Saket Gokhale had also moved the Supreme Court against the same.