Aastha Thakur
Published on: 18 November 2022 at 20:06 IST
The apex court Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul recused himself from dealing with the plea contesting the decision of the Centre dated 17 November 2021 in relation to the extension of term of the ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by one more year.
The matter was listed before the Justice SK Kaul, however Justice politely excused himself from this matter. Now, the petition is directed to be heard by bench in which Justice SK Kaul is not a member.
The petitioner counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, requested before the judge to provide early date of hearing, on ground that the Centre released another notification in relation to this matter, which will destroy the objective of the petitions. However, Justice Kaul did not give any orders for early listing.
Although, the court keeping in view the early listing plea of counsel suggest to place matter before the CJI for further necessary directions.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka was dealing with bunch of petitions challenging Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 which allows the extension of the term of the Director of the Enforcement of Directorate up to 5 years.
The Central Government contrary to the directions issued by SC, extended the term of ED Director by one year which was supposed to end on November 16, 2021. The notification was released by way of promulgation of an ordinance to amend the Central Vigilance Commission Act, allowing an extension up to 5 years for the term of ED Director.
Later on, the ordinance was replaced with the Act with effect from December 2021.
The contention raised by the petitioner is that reinstated ED Director SK Mishra has already attained superannuation because of his 60+ age in May 2020. His initial tenure was for two year, despite this the Centre has override the decision of SC, by amending his term by passing order with retrospective effect.
The petitioners contend that the extension given to Mishra is a blatant violation of the directions of the Supreme Court.
The Central Government submitted the response denying the alleged arguments of petitioners and remarked it as “politically motivated”. Further, it was added that the ED director is necessary for the betterment of society.
The tenure extension decision was not made by the Center, as the petitioners claim; rather, it was made by the High Powered Committees, which have the authority to decide on term extensions for agency heads.
The petitons was filed by Congress leader Dr Jaya Thakur, RS Surjewala, Trinamool Congress leaders Mahua Moitra and Saket Gokhale, Vineet Narain and ML Sharma.