SC validates tenure extension amendments for Enforcement and CBI Directors under Section 25 CVC Act and Section 4B DSPE Act

The SC upheld the constitutional validity of amendments to Section 25 of the CVC Act and Section 4B of the DSPE Act, which allow extension of tenure for Directors of Enforcement and CBI up to one year at a time, with a maximum total period of five years. The Court ruled that Parliament had legislative competence to enact these amendments and they do not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. The amendments require recommendations from statutory committees with recorded reasons in public interest, preventing arbitrary extensions. However, the SC declared the specific extension orders dated 17th November 2021 and 17th November 2022 granting one-year extensions to the Director of Enforcement as illegal, though the underlying legislative framework remains valid. The petition was partly allowed only regarding the invalidity of these specific extension orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Amendments: Challenge to the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, and Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021.
2. Legality of Extensions: Validity of the extensions granted to the tenure of the respondent No.2 as Director of Enforcement.

Summary:

1. Validity of Amendments:
The Court examined whether the amendments to Section 25 of the CVC Act, Section 4B of the DSPE Act, and Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, 1922, were ultra vires and should be set aside. The amendments allowed the extension of the tenure of the Director of Enforcement and Director of CBI for one year at a time, up to a maximum of five years, based on the recommendation of a high-level committee. The Court held that these amendments did not grant arbitrary power to the Government and did not violate any constitutional provisions. The amendments were found to be consistent with the principles laid down in Vineet Narain's case, aiming to insulate these offices from extraneous pressures. Therefore, the challenge to the amendments was rejected.

2. Legality of Extensions:
The Court assessed the validity of the orders dated 17th November 2021 and 17th November 2022, which extended the tenure of respondent No.2, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, as Director of Enforcement for one year each. The Court noted that in the Common Cause (2021) judgment, a specific mandamus was issued that no further extension should be granted to respondent No.2. The Court held that the extensions granted to respondent No.2 were in breach of this mandamus and thus illegal. However, considering the FATF review and the transition period, the Court allowed respondent No.2 to continue in office until 31st July 2023.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021. However, it declared the extensions granted to respondent No.2 as illegal, permitting him to continue in office only until 31st July 2023.

---