Lok Sabha Passes Bills Enabling Extension Of Term Of CBI, ED Directors Up To 5 Years

The Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021 were passed by Lok Sabha today. The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 2021 seeks to amend Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act which prescribes the term of Enforcement Directorate's Director. The Bill provides that the tenure of the Director of Enforcement can be extended for one year at a time on the recommendation of the Committee subject to a maximum period of 5 years. The DSPE (Amendment) Bill, 2021 seeks to amend Sectio 4B of the DSPE Act to provide that the tenure of the Director of CBI can be extended for a period of one year at a time, subject to a maximum term of 5 years. It may be noted that in a recent decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the PIL of Common Cause, and upheld the power of the Central Government to extend the term of ED Director. However, the bench led by Justice L Nageswara Rao made it clear that extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases. Though the Court did not interfere with the extension granted with to Director of Enforcement, it observed that no further extension shall be granted to him. When the Bills were taken up for consideration by Lok Sabha today, Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office, Mr. Jitendra Singh explained that the rise in cases of corruption, white-collar crimes, and "international crimes" necessitated these amendments. He further said that FATF required that all invesitgative agencies be strengthened and streamlined. "The heads of these organisations need to investigate these crimes and they must have a sense of continuity, stability," he explained. Further, he added that contrary to the perception that the Amendments would increase the tenure of the Directors, they would in fact limit the extension to five years. "The CVC Act says 'not more than two years', it does not say 'upto two years'. So in fact we are limiting the tenure upto five years. We are putting an end to the practice of limitless extensions," he said. The Amendments were opposed by MPs from Opposition Parties. MP N.K. Premchandran questioned the Treasury Benches on the need to promulgate Ordinances passed last month. He said: "Ordinances can be promulgated only on extraordinary or compelling circumstances. I would like to know what was the urgency for the passing of these ordinances? What was the urgency to promulgate it on 14th Nov? Why did the government not wait for the Winter Session of the Parliament? Because the present Director was supposed to retire on 19th Nov." He further argued that the manner in which tenure is being extended will made the process very selective, subjecting the exercise of the power to the "whim and fancy of the government." He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had specifically said that the extension of officers who are superannuating should be done in rare and exceptional circumstances. In this light, the intention of the Bills, he argued, seems to be invalidate the directions of the Supreme Court. MP Manish Tewari from INC also raised objections on similar grounds. He additionally raised concerns over the vires of Central Bureau of Investigation. He said: "The Gauhati High Court has held that the CBI is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has stayed the judgement. For the past 8 years the Supreme Court has not found the time to adjudicate on the legality of CBI." Mr. Tewari also submitted that the manner of extension sought to be introduced would undermine the independence of these institutions as they don't provide a fixed tenure of five years but provide a "drip extension of five years" instead. "Have a fixed tenure if you wish. So that institutions are insulated, autonomous and not at the beck and call of the government," he added. Mr.Tewari brought to the attention of the House Common Cause and Vineet Narain cases in which the Supreme Court had clarified that extensions should not be done permanently. MP Supriya Sule from the NCP asked the Minister how the Bills intended increase the strength of the institutions to tackle new and emerging crimes by changing the tenure of just one person? "If the intention was so pure, what was the hurry pass the Ordinances?" she asked. MP Supriya Sule also questioned on what basis the extensions be given to these officers and what the criteria would be. She countered the Minster's reliance practices of other jurisdictions where tenure of heads of investigation organisations have long tenure by pointing out that none of them have "staggered extensions." MP Rajyawardhan Rathore and Satya Pal Singh offered their support in favour of the Bills by arguing that the Amendments would help tackle corruptions and...

Lok Sabha Passes Bills Enabling Extension Of Term Of CBI, ED Directors Up To 5 Years

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags