On Tuesday, The Supreme Court (SC) declared that the Union government’s decisions to extend Sanjay Kumar Mishra tenure by two years, in 2021 and 2022, were “illegal”, know the biography of the IRS and ED director
According to SC, they followed a previous court order that prohibited future extensions for him.
Who is IRS Sanjay Kumar Mishra ED director, biography, age, family, education, batch, profile, hometown
Born in a middle class family in Lucknow, Mishra has a Master’s degree in Biochemistry from Lucknow University and he then joined the Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI) as a senior research fellow and is said to have authored several papers on immunology.
It was on his family’s request that Mishra appeared for the civil services exams, clearing it in his first attempt and after joining the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) in 1984, his first posting was in Gorakhpur, UP, as Assistant Director in the Income Tax department.
Mishra, 62, became an IRS officer in 1984 and is an economic expert and is said to personally supervise big cases.
In 1994, Mishra came back to his cadre of Income Tax and was posted in Ahmedabad for a nine-year stint and then moved to Kolhapur in Maharashtra and was back in Delhi in 2006, where he handled international taxation and transfer pricing.
In 2021, the Center amended the pertinent laws to extend the tenure of the CBI director and ED chief to a maximum of five years. According to the court, this could not be used to defend Mishra’s extension because a law cannot nullify the writ.
The Court additionally said that Mishra may remain in office until July 31 to allow the Center to start a “smooth transition in the larger public interest.”
The bench, headed by Justice BR Gavai, ruled that although the Centre can extend the tenure of an ED director beyond the mandatory two-year period. It was not possible for the bench to grant the two extensions to Mishra in light of a Supreme Court order in September 2021 restricting any further extensions.
The IRS officer from the 1984 batch, who was given a third extension in November of last year, was initially scheduled to leave his position t month.
This court has particularly ordered that the second respondent (Mishra) not be given any more extensions. In the Common Cause case proceedings before this court, Mishra and the Union of India were both parties. The parties were required to abide by the mandamus given to them. The 103-page judgement declared that the two challenged judgements, dated November 17th, 2021, and 2022. The judgement granted Mishra one-year tenure extensions, which are “held to be illegal.”
The court rejected the Centre’s argument that Mishra’s extension can be protected under the new law despite the September 2021 ruling by the top court, upholding the 2021 amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act. The acts allow the Union government to grant an ED director and a CBI chief a maximum cumulative tenure of five years.
The bench noted that a precise directive given to the parties in a case will still be enforceable, even though the effect of court decisions can be overturned by legislative action by eliminating the foundation for the decision.
This court has categorically said that it would be an unlawful legislative act to invalidate a mandamus order through an enactment. The bench added, “This court has also concluded that the legislature’s violation of constitutional restraints and encroachment on the judicial branch constitutes a violation of the rule of law, the principle of the separation of powers, and Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
Congressmen Randeep Singh Surjewala, Jaya Thakur, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and others filed petitions to contest Mishra’s extensions.
Mishra’s initial appointment was for a two-year term ending in November 2020 as the ED director. Before his term ended, he received a one-year extension, which an NGO, Common Cause, contested in the highest court. The court granted the extension by decision in September 2021, realising that the tenure would finish in approximately two months.
The CVC Act and the DSPE Act, which control the appointment of the heads of the two agencies, were amended on November 15, 2021, by the Centre.
As a result, the government was able to award extensions of one year each to the CBI and ED leaders, extending their terms beyond the original two-year limit to three years.
The highest court, which found no errors in the 2021 revisions, pointed out that the government can only give such extensions if the selection committees, which are in place to nominate candidates for appointment, recommend the extension in the public interest and also document the reasons in writing.
The Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, and the leader of the opposition or the head of the single largest opposition party make up the high-level committee for the appointment of the CBI director.
The central vigilance commissioner, vigilance commissioners, and three secretaries from the ministries of home affairs, finance, and personnel make up the selection committee for the ED chief.
In approving the amendments, the court remarked that “it is not at the will of the government that those extensions can be granted to the current directors of CBI or ED. But rather only after consideration of the selection committees’ recommendations and reasoned orders.
To avoid duplication, the committee was instructed to include written justifications for its suggestions. The court stated that neither there was any obvious arbitrariness in the 2021 modifications nor could there be a legal argument that Parliament lacked the authority to pass legislation on this topic.
Mishra’s continued leadership of ED was critical in light of an upcoming peer review by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which will grade India on how well its laws adhere to the international protocols on combating money laundering and financial terrorism. The Centre made this argument in court to support its decision to extend Mishra’s tenure.
The Centre, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, further informed the court during statements opposing the petitions that the 2021 order was granted despite the two-judge panel acknowledging the Centre’s authority to grant extensions. The law enforcement officials emphasised that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act amendment, which was passed last year and allows ED directors to receive one-year extensions up to a maximum of three years beyond their initial two-year tenure, has now eliminated the basis for the 2021 order.
In its ruling on Tuesday, the court stated that because the September 2021 order had determined that the government was free to select a Director of Enforcement for any length of time beyond two years, the issue of changing the foundation of that order had never come up. Additionally, the bench noted that it had prevented the centre from extending Mishra’s term after it expired in November 2021.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Anoop G. Choudhary, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, and attorney Prashant Bhushan defended the petitioners in the case. When the case was being heard in May 2023, veteran attorney KV Viswanathan—who is now a judge on the SC—helped the court as an amicus curiae.
I hear the person who is going to replace #SanjayKumarMishra is going to be younger , experienced in law enforcement and is going to cause sleepless nights ! From August many are going to have sleepless nights !
— Praburam Swamy🕉🧘🏼♂️ 🪷 (@praburamswamy) July 11, 2023
Why did SC cancel ED chief #SanjayKumarMishra’s 3rd extension? #WATCH #SupremeCourt #ED #News
Subscribe to our YouTube page: https://t.co/bP10gHsZuP pic.twitter.com/AQkPorvV94
— UnMuteINDIA (@LetsUnMuteIndia) July 11, 2023