+

NOTICE ON PLEAS CHALLENGING EXTENSION OF ED DIRECTOR TENURE

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the central government on petitions challenging the term of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by one more year. The petitioners also challenged the amendment to the Central Vigilance Act empowering the Centre to extend the tenures of ED and CBI Directors up to five years with one-year […]

Enforcement Directorate
Enforcement Directorate

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the central government on petitions challenging the term of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by one more year. The petitioners also challenged the amendment to the Central Vigilance Act empowering the Centre to extend the tenures of ED and CBI Directors up to five years with one-year extension at a time. 

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana issued the notice to the centre on various pleas challenging the govt decision and listed the matter after 10 days. Advocate M.L. Sharma, petitioner in the matter, submitted before the Supreme Court that the government cannot issue an ordinance to change the provision of the Constitution and neither Lok Sabha nor Rajya Sabha has passed this.

Appearing for senior Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that the amendment allows the central government to give yearly extensions to the ED director for up to five years. That, unlike the CBI, the committee which appointed ED’s Director comprised only the Executives, he added. 

The Supreme Court was hearing eight petitions, including the ones filed by Congress leaders Randeep Singh Surjewala and Jaya Thakur and TMC leader Saket Gokhale. The matter has been kept for hearing after 10 days. 

The petition was filed through Varinder Kumar Sharma and Varun Thakur.

“Presently Respondent No.1 (Centre) using the Enforcement Agencies against the Indian National Congress Party’s president and their office bearer. The investigation is going on for the last ten years intending to damage the image and reputation of their opponent,” the plea said.

The petitioner said that the acts are against democratic features. “In the whole world, there are no agencies to search for up to 10 years. There is some litigation for the conclusion. There is no FIR. In fact, agencies called and investigate without the presence of his advocate. Therefore, the above-said act clearly shows that respondents misusing for political vendetta and harassing the opposition voice which is necessary for a democracy,” the petitioner said adding that ultimately opposition voice is common men voice if they harassed by misusing the agencies, then there is no opposition voice for the common man.

“Using the agencies and harassing the opposition leaders is against democracy. In fact, Supreme Court also created the special court for speedy trial of cases related to the Public Representative, but for the last ten years, only investigation is going on without any accountability, damaging the image of the opposite party, which is an irreparable loss to the democratic structure, “ the plea said.

The petitioner said that several competent officers are eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Director of ED and they should not be deprived of the opportunity to be appointed following the procedure prescribed under the CVC Act.

“The nature of duties exercised by the Director of Enforcement would involve supervision of very important investigations. Under the guise of pendency of investigations into matters which have cross-border ramifications, the tenure of the Director of Enforcement cannot be extended periodically, “ the petitioner said.

Tags: