<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government on petitions questioning validity of the extension of tenure of Enforcement Directorate chief Sanjay Kumar Mishra.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana sought a response from the Centre on a batch of 8 petitions filed by TMC and Congress leaders -- Jaya Thakur, Randeep Singh Surjewala, Saket Gokhale, Mahua Moitra – and other petitions filed by advocate M L Sharma, Krishna Chander Singh, and Vineet Narain, challenging the extension of tenure of the ED director.</p>.<p>The court fixed the matter further hearing after 10 days.</p>.<p>The challenge before the court arose out of the Centre's order issued on November 17, 2021 to extend the term of Mishra by one more year.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/oppn-discuss-strategy-to-counter-sc-order-on-enforcement-directorate-1132124.html" target="_blank">Oppn discuss strategy to counter SC order on Enforcement Directorate</a></strong></p>.<p>The plea also challenged the validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021, which allowed the extension of the term of the Director of the Enforcement of Directorate up to five years.</p>.<p>Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala, submitted that the amendment allowed the central government to give yearly extensions to the ED director up to 5 years, which put the officer at government’s discretion and compromises the independence of the post.</p>.<p>He cited the judgement in the Common Cause Vs Union of India judgment by which the top court had directed in 2021 that Mishra cannot be given further extension.</p>.<p>Maintaining that the extension given to Mishra is a blatant violation of the top court’s directions, another counsel pointed out that the officer had completed four years as ED Director.</p>.<p>The other counsel contended that ED director had failed to upload his immovable property returns from 2017-2020 whereas the vigilance rules and the official memorandum states that clearance to the post won't be granted if the returns aren't uploaded.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government on petitions questioning validity of the extension of tenure of Enforcement Directorate chief Sanjay Kumar Mishra.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana sought a response from the Centre on a batch of 8 petitions filed by TMC and Congress leaders -- Jaya Thakur, Randeep Singh Surjewala, Saket Gokhale, Mahua Moitra – and other petitions filed by advocate M L Sharma, Krishna Chander Singh, and Vineet Narain, challenging the extension of tenure of the ED director.</p>.<p>The court fixed the matter further hearing after 10 days.</p>.<p>The challenge before the court arose out of the Centre's order issued on November 17, 2021 to extend the term of Mishra by one more year.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/oppn-discuss-strategy-to-counter-sc-order-on-enforcement-directorate-1132124.html" target="_blank">Oppn discuss strategy to counter SC order on Enforcement Directorate</a></strong></p>.<p>The plea also challenged the validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021, which allowed the extension of the term of the Director of the Enforcement of Directorate up to five years.</p>.<p>Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala, submitted that the amendment allowed the central government to give yearly extensions to the ED director up to 5 years, which put the officer at government’s discretion and compromises the independence of the post.</p>.<p>He cited the judgement in the Common Cause Vs Union of India judgment by which the top court had directed in 2021 that Mishra cannot be given further extension.</p>.<p>Maintaining that the extension given to Mishra is a blatant violation of the top court’s directions, another counsel pointed out that the officer had completed four years as ED Director.</p>.<p>The other counsel contended that ED director had failed to upload his immovable property returns from 2017-2020 whereas the vigilance rules and the official memorandum states that clearance to the post won't be granted if the returns aren't uploaded.</p>
