Supreme Court seeks response from Central government in challenge to retrospective extension of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra's tenure

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Central government, Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED), Sanjay Kumar Mishra, and Central Vigilance Commission on a plea challenging the retrospective change in appointment order of Mishra by which his tenure was increased from two years to three years..A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat was hearing a plea by NGO Common Cause seeking to quash the November 13, 2020, order of the ED amending the tenure of Mishra which the NGO claimed was in violation of Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. .Section 25(c) of the Act provides that no person below the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India shall be eligible for appointment as a Director of Enforcement and Section 25(d) of the Act provides that a Director of Enforcement shall continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date on which he assumes office..Mishra, vide order dated November, 2018, was appointed as Director of Enforcement in the ED for a period of two years from the date of assumption of charge of the post or until further orders, whichever fell earlier. The said two-year tenure ended in November last year. Mishra had already reached the retirement age of 60 years in May, 2020..However, the Central government on November 13, 2020 issued an office order in which it was stated that the President has modified the 2018 order to the effect that a period of ‘two years’ written in the 2018 order was modified to a period of ‘three years’."Thus, by virtue of the impugned Office Order, dated 13.11.2020, the appointment order dated 19.11.2018 has been modified with retrospective effect and the Respondent No.2 herein has been given an additional one year of service as Director of Enforcement in the Enforcement Directorate," the petition highlighted.The plea said that the purpose behind Section 25 (d) of the Act, in providing a minimum tenure of two years, is only to insulate the Director of Enforcement from all kinds of influences and pressures. "However, the said purpose gets defeated if on the verge of his two-year tenure and much after his retirement age, the Director of Enforcement is given a de facto extension in service by adoption of a circuitous route of modifying the initial appointment order itself," the petition said. .Such illegalities in appointment of the Director of Enforcement will shake the confidence of citizens in the institution of Enforcement Directorate, it was contended. ."Such an action will be totally against the laudable principles highlighting the need of impeccable integrity of persons holding high public offices and the consequent need for insulating the said offices from extraneous influences, as enshrined by this Hon’ble Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226," the plea stated. .Advocate Prashant Bhushan represented the petitioner organisation.