22.2 C
Saturday, July 13, 2024

SC Issues Notice to the Centre on Extending Incumbency of the ED Director

Meanwhile, Advocate ML Sharma objected to listing order of PILs against ED director's term

Must read

INDIA: The Supreme Body of Law issued a notice to the Central Government, questioning the extension of incumbency for the ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by one more year. The petition also seeks attention over the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021, which confirms the term extension of 5 years for the Enforcement of Directorate archon.

The following Congress figureheads filed the complaint: Dr Jaya Thakur, RS Surjewala, Trinamool Congress leaders Mahua Moitra and Saket Gokhale, Vineet Narain and ML Sharma.

- Advertisement -

The petition filed by Dr Jaya Thakur was issued as the first matter. On the other hand, Advocate’s ML Sharma’s petition was listed as the last matter.

Advocate ML Sharma took objection to this and said, “Who would lead the matter is the question. I have the right to be the first petitioner. I had filed the petition last year”. This statement is considered by the justice bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli.

- Advertisement -

The bench said: “Issue notice to the central law agency.” Answering the repeated question of ML Sharma, the CJI said: “Mr Sharma, don’t create a problem every day. I’ve directed the Registry to change the list. Mr Sharma, you have to understand. When some counsel mentions the matter, the Registry lists that matter first, and after that, they list other pleas.”

Advocate ML Sharma said that it violates Article 100 of the Constitution. Sharma says, “You cannot issue an ordinance to change the provision of the Constitution. Neither Lok Sabha nor Rajya Sabha has passed this as per Article 100 of the Constitution. Just saying that a bill was passed is a violation of Article 100. Without voting, the bill cannot be passed. The ordinance itself was not passed in the house by way of Article 100. Otherwise, the proceedings may have the votes.”

- Advertisement -

“The bill which was moved in the parliament was not passed in the house. So the ordinance goes & it was not even presented before the house within six months, and thus this amendment should go,” he added.

The petition challenged two ordinances brought in last November by the Central government extending the incumbency of directors of CBI and ED from a fixed tenure of two years to the greatest of five years.

Also Read: Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing of the Petitions Related to Shiv Sena Split 


- Advertisement -



Trending Today