The Supreme Court’s decision on July 11 to invalidate the extensions granted to SK Mishra, the chief of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), is a significant victory for the rule of law. These extensions were deemed illegal as they violated the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in the Common Cause case, which explicitly prohibited any further extension for Mishra.
IS IT INTERFERENCE?
Many viewed the government’s decision to extend Mishra’s tenure as an attempt to interfere with the ED’s investigations into high-profile cases. Mishra assumed the position of ED chief in November 2018 and saw his tenure extended twice, in November 2020 and November 2021. However, Common Cause, a non-profit organization, challenged the third extension granted in November 2022, leading to the Supreme Court’s involvement.
WHAT THE SC SAID?
In a 103-page verdict, Justices BR Gavai, VikramNath, and Sanjay Karol declared the extensions granted to Sanjay Kumar Mishra, the ED chief, on November 17, 2021, and November 17, 2022, as illegal. However, the court allowed Mishra to continue in office until July 31, 2023, partially granting the plea.
While upholding the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Supreme Court affirmed the Centre’s authority to extend the tenure of the CBI and ED chiefs by up to three years beyond their mandatory terms, with a maximum tenure of five years.
The bench highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in legislative actions, stating that interference can occur only on three grounds: legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, and manifest arbitrariness. It concluded that the legislature possessed the required competence, no fundamental rights were violated, and there was no manifest arbitrariness. The bench further emphasized that extensions for high-level officials like Mishra can be granted in the public interest, provided there are written reasons justifying such extensions.
ED INDEPENDENCE
This decision by the Supreme Court serves as a clear message that the government cannot compromise the independence of the ED. It upholds the integrity of the organization and ensures that it can carry out its investigations impartially and without undue influence.
Some concerns have been raised regarding the court’s decision. Critics argue that Mishra should have been allowed to continue until the completion of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) peer review process. However, the court’s decision was based on the illegality of the extensions and cannot condone such violations merely for the sake of convenience.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the extensions granted to SK Mishra, the ED chief, is a welcome development. It upholds the rule of law, preserves the ED’s independence, and ensures that the organization can carry out its investigations without any hindrance or bias.