GS Paper 2
Syllabus: Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial Bodies
Source: TH
Context: The SC asked the ED Director to quit (4 months before his third extension ends) even as it upheld statutory amendments which facilitate the tenures of Directors of the CBI and the ED to be stretched.
The timeline which leads to the recent verdict:
- The current Enforcement Directorate (ED) Director (Mr SK Mishra) was appointed for a two-year term in 2018.
- In 2020, the original appointment was retrospectively amended to make it a three-year tenure.
- In 2021, the SC directed the government to stop giving extensions to the ED Director.
- In order to tweak the above verdict, amendments were enacted in 2021 to the Central Vigilance Commission Act, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
- This allows a maximum of 3 annual extensions (taking a total term of 5 years) to the Directors of CBI and ED on the recommendation of High-Level Committees.
- Earlier, CBI and ED chiefs have fixed tenures of two years.
- He was given two annual extensions in 2021 and 2022, despite crossing the age of superannuation.
The High-Level Committees:
- A five-member panel composed of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioners had to recommend if an ED Director was worthy of an extension in service.
- In the case of the CBI Director, a High-Level Committee of the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader and the Chief Justice of India had to recommend.
- These committees were required to record reasons in writing in support of their recommendations.
The recent verdict:
- The back-to-back service extensions given to the ED Director in 2021 and 2022 were illegal, as they were not as per the recommendations of the High-Level Committees.
- By upholding the 2021 amendments, the court disagreed with the argument that the Centre could use the service extensions as a ‘carrot and stick’ policy – against the principle of insulating these agencies from government pressure.
Takeaways from the SC’s verdict:
- A setback to the cause of protecting institutional independence.
- While the part of the judgement quashing the extensions given to the ED Director, may be welcomed, the rest of it is a free pass to the government to undermine the autonomy of these agencies.
- Even though Parliament can remove the basis for any judgement through legislation, it cannot nullify a court direction.
- The Court’s earlier observation that such extension should be given to those who have attained superannuation only in “rare and exceptional cases”, was ignored by the government.
Conclusion:
At a time when there is a cloud of suspicion over the misuse of government agencies against political opponents, the Court’s endorsement of a tenure extension system designed to undermine their independence is not conducive to the rule of law.
Insta Links:
Parliamentary panel recommends new law to define power, functions of CBI
Mains Links:
What is a quasi-judicial body? Explain with the help of concrete examples. (UPSC 2016)
