The Union government has defended in the Supreme Court the third extension given to director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Sanjay Kumar Mishra, arguing that the petition challenging the extension seeks to scuttle the legitimate statutory investigation being carried out against certain Congress party leaders whereas the continuity of the leadership in ED is crucial in national interest.
Submitting its affidavit in the matter on February 24, the government claimed that the petition has been filed by Congress leader Dr Jaya Thakur at the behest of her “political masters”, who are being investigated by ED and are otherwise fully competent to approach respective courts.
“It is apparent that the subject petitions are filed for and on behalf of such leaders of political parties of the petitioners and to ensure that the Enforcement Directorate does not and cannot discharge its statutory duties fearlessly. There is a manifest political interest in filing the above writ petitions, which is apparent,” stated the affidavit, seeking dismissal of the petition.
Contending that Thakur has failed to disclose serious cases of money laundering under investigation against several other Congress leaders, the affidavit added that her plea is clearly motivated and is admittedly intended to scuttle the legitimate statutory investigation being carried out by ED against certain politically exposed persons.
The government also underlined that the continuation of the tenure of the ED chief was vital for India’s evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
“The next peer review of India’s legislation on money laundering is to take place in 2023 and with a view to ensuring that India’s rating does not go down, continuity of the leadership in the Enforcement Directorate is crucial,” the affidavit mentioned.
The upcoming mutual evaluation by FATF for the year 2022-23 gains the utmost significance, the government informed the top court.
It highlighted that the committee to pick up ED director took note of the above-mentioned considerations and arrived at the view that it would not only be desirable but imperative in national interest to have continuity of the incumbent director in ED with his overall experience of the administration.
The government further stated that amendments to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act extending tenure was brought in public interest and that the fixed tenure of CBI and ED directors were not altered, adding there is “no embargo” to extend the tenure of CBI and ED directors beyond the stated period of two years.
The Centre argued that tenure of ED director and CBI director “may need to be extended beyond the initial terms in special circumstances in public interest, depending upon the circumstances, on the recommendation of the committee prescribed under the respective statute and for the reasons be recorded in writing.
A bench, led by justice BR Gavai, had in January given the government three weeks to respond to the PIL filed by Thakur challenging the order issued by the central government in November 2022 to extend Mishra’s tenure by a year.
Mishra is a 1984-batch Indian Revenue Service officer who got his first one-year extension before his two-year tenure came to a close in November 2020. This was challenged before the Supreme Court by an NGO named Common Cause, leading to a September 2021 judgment by the court that directed against further extension to Mishra.
On November 15, 2021, the Centre brought in the amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, governing the appointment of heads of ED and CBI, by which Section 25 of the CVC Act was amended.