BREAKING| Supreme Court Extends ED Director SK Mishra's Term Till September 15 "In Larger National Interest"; Says No Further Extensions

The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the term of the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) SK Mishra till September 15 in "larger public interest". Mishra's term was to end on July 31 as per the July 11 judgment which held the previous extensions given to the officer to be illegal. A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol partly allowed Centre's plea to extend Mishra's term till October 15, 2023. The bench however added that no further extensions will be allowed to him."In ordinary circumstances, we would not have accepted such an application having held that the extension granted to him was illegal. We allowed him to continue till July 31 to allow smooth transition. Taking into consideration larger national interest, we permit ED director to continue for some more period.We add that no further application would be entertained for grant of extension. We also direct that the respondent will cease to be the director of ED with effect of midnight of 15th/16th September 2023", the bench ordered. The Centre cited the involvement of the outgoing ED director in the review of India’s anti-money laundering mechanisms by the Financial Action Task Force(FATF), a global peer review body.Is only one person competent? Bench asks during the hearing"Mr.Solicitor, are we not giving a picture that your entire department is full of incompetent persons and that there is only one competent? Is it not demoralising to the entire department that it cannot work if one person is not there?", Justice Gavai asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta when the hearing started.SG agreed that no person is "indispensable"; but added that that the FATF peer review has been going on for the past five years and there will be continuous questions which are to be answered. "It is not that anybody is indispensable. But the continuity will help the nation. The FATF review will determine the country's credit rating and credit rating will determine whatever financial help the country can get from World Bank etc", SG said. He informed that the FATF committee is coming for on-site visit from November 3.Justice Gavai pointed out that the judgment allowed him to continue till July 31, despite holding his extensions to be illegal, considering this fact. "We could have held that he cannot hold office for any single day further, but we still allowed him", Justice Gavai said.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said that the non-extension can lead to a negative image and said that there are other countries which are trying to ensure that India will fall into the "grey list". SG said that as per the present FATF review, India is on the "compliant list".Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners who questioned the extension, said, "it saddens me to see the extent to which my learned friends say that everything in the country is dependent on the shoulder of one single man". If FATF review is the reason, then why the extension is sought only till October 2023, as the process goes on till 2024, asked Singhvi. He said that the queries to the FATF are responded by the Secretary head and not the head of the investigating agency and that the review is based on 40 parameters and not the performance of ED alone."This also sends a very wrong message. It is a country 140 billion people and we are dependent on one officer? This is deplorable", Singhvi urged.Senior Advocate Anoop George Chaudhary, appearing for another petitioner, submitted that Revenue Secretary is the main person for FATF review and the officers holding that post have changed in last three years. He added that the Financial Intelligence Unit(FIU) is a more important office that the Directorate of Enforcement in this process. ED comes down below all other agencies like FIU, CBI etc."The FIU is designated as the central national agency for receiving, analysing and processing information related to suspect financial transactions and for efforts relating to money laundering. A wrong picture is being given to this Court. If the revenue secretaries can be changed three times and if the FIU Director can be sent on repatriation, then the ED officer can be changed. An acting director can be appointed", Chaudhary said."What message are we sending if an illegal person is allowed to continue? We are giving a signal to the international community that we have no person other than Mr.Mishra whose extensions have been held illegal?", the senior counsel submitted.Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the averments in the Centre's applications were made in the previous hearing as well. "If this person is so important, the Government can appoint him as a special advisor to whoever is going to be there for the FATF review. Why do they seek extension till October when the process goes on till 2024?", he submitted. He termed the Centre's application a "gross abuse of the process of the court" and said that allowing such application will "make...

BREAKING| Supreme Court Extends ED Director SK Mishra's Term Till September 15 "In Larger National Interest"; Says No Further Extensions

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags