Long Tenure For ED Director Serves Public Interest, Challenge Against It Politically Motivated : Centre To Supreme Court

From claiming that the petitioners are politically motivated to stating that the legislature's motive in enacting a law cannot be questioned, the Central government has filed a comprehensive counter affidavit supporting the extension of tenure given to the Director of the Directorate Enforcement (ED). This affidavit came in response to a batch of petitions challenging the extension given to the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitions also challenge Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021 [Amendment] which allows the extension of the term of the Director of the Enforcement of Directorate up to 5 years. Here are the key highlights of the ED's Affidavit: Petitioners Are Politically Motivated The ED's counter affidavit states that the present writ petition styled as a PIL is not maintainable as it is stems from a political motive. The affidavit reads, "The present repetition is clearly motivated and is admitted, admittedly intended to scuttle the ledger to meet statutory investigation being carried out by the direct rate of enforcement against certain politically exposed persons. The real motive of the petition is to question the investigation being carried out against the president and certain office bearers of the Indian National Congress Party, as is evident from the writ petition instead of available alternative remedies like filing an appropriate petition for cost sharing, etc under the CRPC." The affidavit throws light on the fact Jaya Thakur, Saket Golkhale, Randeep Singh Surejwala and Mahua Moitra, the petitioners in the batch of petitions, are political leaders hailing from different political parties. The Centre further states that eminent leaders of these political parties are under this investigation of the Directorate, however, this aspect was not mentioned in the PILs. "The Directorate is strictly going on in accordance with law which is reflected from the fact that in most cases, either the competent courts have taken cognizance or constitutional courts have refused to grant any relief to such parties of the above political parties. There is a manifest political interest in filing the above writ petitions which is apparent, it clearly appears that to achieve such political advantage, the petitioners are camouflaged as political interest litigation, without even bothering to mention the bad the important leaders the parties to which each of the petitioners belong are being investigated", the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary of the Department of Revenue state. Further, the affidavit states that for an Article 32 to be maintainable, there has to be a violation of a fundamental right under Part Three of the Constitution. "Other than some vague references to violation of article 14, the petitioner has failed to substantiate how many of her fundamental rights have been violated", it reads. Tenure of Director of ED has been increased In Public Interest The top priority of the Union Government has been to eradicate corruption and cases of money laundering. Amongst other agencies investigating into corruption cases, the two most important investigating agencies are the ED and Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]. Considering the complex nature of crimes which are generally investigated, it's best if the Directors of the agencies have sufficiently long tenures, ED argues. "With criss-cross entrenchment of persons and groups involving in money laundering and anti-corruption activities unravelling the crime and corruption Nexus through EDI and CBI becomes not only complex, but also has international ramifications. Thus, investigation of such crimes requires the two investigating agencies to have robust processes and senior personnel in position for sufficiently long tenures. As such enhancing capacity and resources for continuing oversight by the senior officers, especially the heads of the two agencies gains criticality." The tenure and appointments of heads of ED and CBI has been envisaged in the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 And the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 respectively. The Amendments made to the respective statutes pave way for providing even longer tenure to the heads of the institutions to help in continuing investigation and critical matters, the affidavit argues. Claiming that the petitioners' have an erroneous understanding that it is the central government which at its discretion in deciding extensions of terms of the Heads of agencies, the affidavit pointed out that High Powered Committees decide this aspect. "However, a better reading of the amendment to section 25 (d) of the CVC Act would make it clear that it is a committee constituted under Section 25 (a) of the CVC Act consider and decide upon the issue of the extension of the term of the Director, ED." Further, the affidavit adds that, "Legal provisions or service...

Long Tenure For ED Director Serves Public Interest, Challenge Against It Politically Motivated : Centre To Supreme Court

Rintu Mariam Biju

Tags