new law Authorizing extension of services of heads of Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate Unless they complete a total tenure of five years, they will severely compromise the autonomy of those agencies. This goes against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision: Vineet Narayan Vs Union of India (1997) which put forth a saying that the minimum tenure of directors of CBI and ED should be two years. This was to prevent sudden transfer from his office if his functioning goes against the interests of the then regime. While it did not specifically prohibit lengthening or extension, the prospect of obtaining an annual extension may have been an incentive to demonstrate loyalty to the regime in the discharge of their duties. It may be noted that in the case of current Enforcement Director SK Mishra, who was appointed for two years in November 2018, his services were extended by an order dated November 13, 2020, which extended the original period of appointment from two years. was increased to three. years. The changes were brought in through an ordinance in November, raising doubts whether the government is willing to retain them at the top. Given that central agencies have drawn much criticism for focusing on individuals linked to opposition parties, such a measure would be seen as a reward for directed action rather than a need to keep ongoing investigations on track. .
Anyway, fixed tenure for some posts means that their retirement within that period will not end their term. In fact, there is an implied extension for an officer appointed to one of these protected posts if the appointment comes within two years of retirement. Another extension that would take the services of officers beyond retirement would also render the heads of two investigative agencies, one year at a time, unacceptable to the government. Also, in Mr. Misra’s case, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the period of his original appointment by an additional one year, but also held that “the extension of the tenure given to officers who have attained the age of superannuation can be done only in Must be known rare and exceptional cases”. And that further extension should only be for a “short period”. It also made it clear that they would not be given any further extension. It is possible that the government will comply with this order and not pass on the benefit of the amendment to Mr. Misra, but it does not make the act of authorizing extension from year to year for future appointees less detrimental to the public interest. The security offered by a fixed tenure and the use of a high-ranking committee to recommend appointments and transfers was to undermine the ‘principle of pleasure’ inherent in the civil service. However, it can be violated if the extension allowed in exceptional circumstances becomes the rule.
,