Supreme Court asks ED chief to quit; but upholds amendments

Source: The post is based on the article “Supreme Court asks ED chief to quit; but upholds amendments” published in The Hindu on 12th July 2023

What is the News?

The Supreme Court has said that the third extension to the present Enforcement Directorate (ED) chief was illegal and in violation of its judgment in 2021.

However, the court permitted him to continue in office until July 31 to allow for a smooth transfer.

What was the case before the Supreme Court?

The present ED Chief was first appointed as the ED Director in 2018, for a fixed period of two years. 

Days before his tenure was to end, the President modified the previous order retrospectively and changed Mishra’s tenure to three years.

In November 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the extension granted to ED Chief beyond two years.

In December 2021, the Parliament passed two bills: The Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

These bills provide that the tenure of ED and CBI chiefs could be extended by up to three years after the mandated term of two years.

Hence, under the amended law, he got an extension from November 2021 to November 2022. Further, he got the third extension by a notification till November 2023.

This extension and the amendments to the CVC and DSPE Act were challenged before the Supreme Court.

What was the ruling of the Supreme Court?

Source: Hindustan Times

On ED Tenure extension: The Supreme Court has said that the consecutive service extensions granted to Mishra in 2021 and 2022 as illegal. The court ordered the present ED Chief to resign by July 31, allowing for a smooth transition of responsibilities to his successor. 

On amendments to the CVC and DSPE Act: The Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the amendments made to the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

The court referred to the need to exercise self-imposed limits while undertaking judicial review of legislative or executive actions.

It said that the legislative enactment can be struck down only on two grounds: 1) Firstly, that the appropriate legislature does not have the competence to make the law and 2) secondly, that it takes away or abridges any of the Fundamental Rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions.