Centre questions bona fide of political petitioners in Enforcement Directorate Director’s tenure fixity row

Most petitions filed by political leaders of parties whose eminent members are being investigated by the agency, notes Solicitor General

The Centre on Monday questioned in the Supreme Court the bona fide of political leaders who have filed public interest cases about the tenure extensions granted to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) chief even as petitioners retorted that “piecemeal” lengthening of service has a tendency to affect the independent functioning of officers heading agencies that investigate sensitive cases.

The exchange occurred before a Bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, which was hearing a batch of petitions filed by the likes of Congress party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala, Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, social activist and General Secretary of Madhya Pradesh Congress Mahila Committee Jaya Thakur. They have sought the quashing of a government order of November 2021 extending the tenure of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by a year.

The court appointed senior advocate K.V. Viswanathan as amicus curiae in the case and listed it for final disposal on September 19.

“Except for one or two, all the petitions have been filed by political leaders belonging to parties whose eminent leaders are being investigated by the agency (ED), and these PILs are not bonafide PILs but pressure tactics,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted.

Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for Mr. Surjewala, responded that fixity of tenure for the ED Director was an essential ingredient of his functional independence.

The petitioners have questioned the legality of amendments made to the Central Vigilance Commission Act by way of promulgation of an ordinance in November last year. This ordinance, which allows extensions of up to five years for ED Director, paved the way for the government to stretch Mr. Mishra’s tenure by a year till November 2022. The ordinance, which became an Act in December, was promulgated within days of a Supreme Court order barring any further extensions to Mr. Mishra, the petitioners have contended.

“Piecemeal extensions of tenure like this takes away the fixity of tenure, which is the hallmark of independence,” Mr. Singhvi contended.