Petition moved in Supreme Court challenging third extension of tenure given to ED Director

New Delhi [India], December 1 (ANI): A petition has been moved in the Supreme Court challenging the third extension of tenure of the Director of Enforcement Directorate saying that it is destroying the democratic process of the country.
Mishra was first appointed as the ED Director for a two-year term in November 2018, which was later extended.
The plea was filed by the General Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee Jaya Thakur through advocate Varun Thakur and advocate Shashank Ratnoo.
The petitioner also said the extension has been granted despite the matter being subjudice and initial adverse order against the respondent ED Director SK Mishra in another petition filed by activist Dr Jaya Thakur in the Supreme Court of India.
The petitioner has challenged the Centre decision dated November 17 2022, whereby the govt has extended the third tenure of the director of Enforcement Directorate SK Mishra.
The petitioner said that democracy is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution and rule of law and free and fair elections are basic features of democracy. “The respondents destroyed the basic structure of democracy by misusing the enforcement agencies against the political opponent. The Supreme Court in the number of the cases held that appointment in Enforcement Agencies must be fair and transparent manners, if their appointment will be done in biased nature, then they can be used as tools,” the petition said.
The petition also said that there is no power conferred on the Union of India to extend the tenure of the Director of Enforcement and the Union of India cannot take refuge under the plea that important investigations are pending for which reason the tenure of the Director of Enforcement can be extended.
The plea also said there are several competent officers who are eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Director of Enforcement and they should not be deprived of the opportunity to be appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the CVC Act.
“Even assuming without conceding that the tenure of Respondent No.2 (SK Mishra) can be extended, it cannot be for a period of one year when the original appointment was made for a period of two years. The nature of duties exercised by the Director of Enforcement would involve the supervision of very important investigations. Under the guise of pendency of investigations into matters which have cross-border ramifications, the tenure of the Director of Enforcement cannot be extended periodically,” read the plea. (ANI)