It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has allowed S K Mishra, Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), to continue in office till September 15 after it had ruled on July 11 that he could continue only till July 31. The court said he could continue till September 15 after the central government sought his continuation till October 15, claiming that his services are indispensable during the ongoing country review before the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The court had earlier found that the extensions given to Mishra in 2021 and 2022 were illegal and had rejected the government’s argument that his services were indispensable for the FATF review. The government approached the court again with the same argument and the court has now accepted it partially.
The government had no fresh argument, except the indispensability of Mishra, for another extension for him. The court had already rejected this argument and asked the government whether it did not have other competent officers to supervise the FATF review. So, it is strange that the argument was accepted by the court. It is clear that there was no public interest involved in the matter but only the government’s interest in his continuance. Even the court’s nod for his continuance till July 31 was unfortunate because his tenure in office in the last two years was illegal. The ground cited for it was the need for continuity in office, but the government should have prepared for a change as the court judgement on the matter was expected. It should also be noted that the ED is only one of the 40 departments involved in the FATF review, which will go on till June 2024. The government’s contention that the discontinuance of Mishra’s tenure would give a negative image to the country was laughable and had no merit in it.
After the July 11 judgement, the government did not set the process for appointing a new ED chief in motion but decided to approach the court for an extension. It should have accepted the judgement, instead of trying to haggle with the court for another extension. Such haggling is fine in the case of personal, political, or other disputes, but not on matters of legal rights and wrongs. An illegality is an illegality, and there should be no compromise on it as it sets a wrong precedent. The government could have used Mishra’s services only for the FATF review and appointed another person as ED Director. The court could well have ignored the government’s contention and stuck to its earlier order, which was actually in greater public interest.