New Delhi, July 11: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held as “illegal” two notifications by the Centre granting extension of service, for one year each time, to Indian Revenue Service officer Sanjay Kumar Mishra as the chief of the Enforcement Directorate.
However, the top court upheld the amendments made to the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 as well as to the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 by which the government can give a maximum of five-year tenure to CBI and ED chiefs.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol said in view of the peer review being conducted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) this year, and to enable smooth transition, Mishra’s tenure will be till July 31.
FATF is a global body that leads action to tackle money laundering, terrorist and proliferation financing.
“The impugned orders dated November 17, 2021 and November 17, 2022 granting extensions to the tenure of the respondent No.2- Sanjay Kumar Mishra for a period of one year each are held to be illegal,” the bench said, while partially allowing the writ petitions challenging the extension given to the officer.
The 1984-batch IRS officer was otherwise to remain in office till November 18, 2023, according to the notification issued by the government. The bench said though the court has held that orders dated November 17, 2021 and November 17, 2022 granting extensions to Mishra are not valid in law, it is inclined to take into consideration the concern expressed by the Union of India with regard to FATF review.
“We are further inclined to take into consideration that the process of appointing the Director of Enforcement is likely to take some time. In that view of the matter, we find that in order to ensure the transition to be smooth in the larger public interest, it will be appropriate to permit respondent No.2 to continue to be in office till July 31, 2023,” the top court said.
The bench said the scope of judicial review in a legislative action is very limited and it can be interfered with only on three grounds – as to whether legislature was competent enough to legislate on the subject, whether it affects any fundamental right, and manifest arbitrariness.
“We have found that the legislature is competent to legislate on the subject, and secondly there is no violation of any fundamental rights, and thirdly there is no manifest arbitrariness,” it said.
The bench, in its 103-page verdict, said the challenge to Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 as well as to the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 is rejected and the writ petitions are dismissed to that extent. (PTI)
