Congress leader Randeep Surjewala moves Supreme Court against ordinances extending tenures of ED, CBI chiefs

Aditi Tandon

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, November 18

Congress general secretary and chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent ordinances promulgated by the government to extend the service tenures of the CBI and ED chiefs from two to five years.

The Congress leader also challenged the November 15 amendments by the Ministry of Personnel to the fundamental rules that allow such service extension.

“The present writ petition is being filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a set of Ordinances and a Notification published by the Respondents, namely, the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, dated 14.11.2021; Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, dated 14.11.2021 along with the Corrigendum dated 15.11.2021; Notification No. G.S.R. 795(E) dated 15.11.2021 titled Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. These Ordinances empower the Government of India to provide piecemeal extensions (of one year each), following the conclusion of the fixed terms provided in their respective statutes, to the tenures of the Director of Enforcement and the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). There are no criteria provided save for a vague reference to ‘public interest’ and is in fact, based on the subjective satisfaction of the Respondents. This has the direct and clear impact of eroding the independence of the investigative bodies in question,” the petition states.

Surjewala says in his petition that the Ordinances and Government Notification were against the express principles and safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain vs Union of India (1998) case and Alok K Verma vs Union of India case.

The two judgments categorically dealt with the need to ensure fixity of tenure for the Director, CBI, and expressly prohibit any further extension of tenure for the Director of Enforcement.

“These Ordinances go against the aforementioned rulings that give much-needed stability to the tenure of Director of Enforcement and the Director, CBI, to protect them from political interference,” the petitioner states.

The grounds for challenge mentioned in the petition include extension of tenure in an “ad-hoc and episodic fashion”.

“Such extension in fact reaffirms the control of the executive over investigative agencies and is directly antithetical to their independent functioning. The Impugned Ordinances and Notification are also in direct contravention of the recommendations suggested by the Independent Review Committee (IRC) constituted in 1997 which recommended that the Director, CBI, should have a minimum tenure of two years, and that a “change in the existing Tenure Rules is not recommended,” the petitioner says.

“The Ordinances and Notification reveal a clear abuse of power by the Respondents and also a flagrant contravention of the observations of this court,” states Surjewala.