The Centre has defended its decision to extend the director of the Enforcement Directorate’s tenure, claiming that the petition challenging it is motivated and urging the Supreme Court to dismiss it. The Centre government submission came on an affidavit filed countering the submission of the petition challenging the extension of the ED director.
The government told the Supreme Court that the petition challenging ED tenure extension is without merit and urged the court to dismiss it. The Centre informed the Supreme Court that the petition is clearly motivated by a tangential personal interest rather than any public interest litigation.
The petition is also a misuse of Article 32 of the Constitution, as it is clearly filed in a representative capacity for and on behalf of the President and office bearers of the Indian National Congress, who are being investigated by the ED and are otherwise fully competent to approach respective courts for appropriate statutory relief and remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to the Centre.
The Centre stated that the petition was filed for advocating for the cause of her political masters when there is nothing preventing the persons under investigation from approaching the competent court for any appropriate relief.
The Centre argued that the current Writ Petition, dubbed a Public Interest Litigation, is clearly motivated and is clearly intended to scuttle the legitimate statutory investigation being conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement against certain politically exposed individuals.
According to the Centre, the true purpose of the petition is to call into question the investigation being conducted against the President and certain office bearers of the Indian National Congress Party.
According to the Centre, it is a well-known fact that the threat of corruption, black money, and international financial crime, as well as its intricate links with drugs, terrorism, and other criminal offences, pose a serious threat to national security and the stability of our country’s financial systems.
Furthermore, corruption in public life frequently results in the violation of ordinary people’s economic and social rights.
“The spectre of corruption at times totally erodes the confidence of people in the systems that are meant to provide them good governance. Effectively tackling corruption is therefore essential for the realization of economic and social rights of people and for maintaining their faith in institutions and governance,” Centre said.
“It is respectfully submitted that certain leaders of the aforesaid political parties are under investigation of the Directorate. The investigation is strictly going on in accordance with the law which is reflected from the fact that in most of the cases, either the competent Courts have taken cognizance of the offence or Constitutional Courts have refused to grant any relief to such leaders of the above political parties,” the affidavit read.
“It is apparent that the subject petitions are filed for and on behalf of such leaders of political parties of the petitioners and to ensure that the Enforcement Directorate does not and cannot discharge its statutory duties fearlessly. There is a manifest political interest in filing the above writ petitions, which is apparent. It clearly appears that to achieve such political advantage the petitions are camouflaged as Public Interest Litigation without even bothering to mention details about the important leaders of the parties to which each of the petitioners belongs are being investigated. As a matter of fact, the petitioner in the present case makes the said thing apparent though she has also failed to disclose serious cases of money laundering under investigation against several other leaders of the party to which she belongs,” the affidavit read.
“It is apparent that the subject petitions are filed for and on behalf of such leaders of political parties of the petitioners and to ensure that the Enforcement Directorate does not and cannot discharge its statutory duties fearlessly. There is a manifest political interest in filing the above writ petitions, which is apparent. It clearly appears that to achieve such political advantage the petitions are camouflaged as Public Interest Litigation without even bothering to mention details about the important leaders of the parties to which each of the petitioners belongs are being investigated. As a matter of fact, the petitioner in the present case makes the said thing apparent though she has also failed to disclose serious cases of money laundering under investigation against several other leaders of the party to which she belongs,” the affidavit read.
The Centre stated these facts in response to a petition filed by Jaya Thakur, General Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee, through advocates Varun Thakur and Shashank Ratnoo.
In another petition filed by activist Dr Jaya Thakur in the Supreme Court of India, the petitioner Jaya Thakur stated that the extension was granted despite the matter being subjudice and an initial adverse order against the respondent ED Director SK Mishra.
The petitioner has challenged the Centre’s decision dated November 17, 2022, by which the government extended the director of the Enforcement Directorate, SK Mishra, for a third term.
According to the petitioner, democracy is a fundamental feature of our Constitution, as are the rule of law and free and fair elections. “By misusing the enforcement agencies against the political opponent, the respondents destroyed the fundamental structure of democracy.
In a number of cases, the Supreme Court ruled that appointments in law enforcement agencies must be fair and transparent, and that if they are made in a biassed manner, they can be used as tools “According to the petition.
