The Apex Court’s Approval To The Extension Granted To The Head Of Compliance Department

NAME OF THE CASE AND CORAM

• Case: Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India
• Coram: Justice L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai
• Case No: WP(C) 1374 of 2020

KEY-TAKEAWAYS

• The Supreme Court granted approval to the term of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
• The bench of Judges L. Nageshwara Rao and BR Hawaii ruled that a fair extension of time could be provided to allow ongoing investigations to be completed, but that "any extension granted to those who take over as head of corporate control after attaining retirement age should be for a short length of time."
• Despite the fact that the retirement age is 60 years, the government has the authority or discretionary power to impose duties for more than two years.
• It was applied in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 56.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• The duties of the head of the Ministry of Education, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, expired in November 2018. The Court ruled that no further grace period should be granted to him. Mishra retired in May 2020.
• The court decision was made at the request of the public organization - "Common Cause”. A government decision of November 13, 2020 retrospectively granted Mishra an extension, changing his original two-year deadline from November 19, 2018 to three years. The decision was approved by a High Committee chaired by the Central Oversight Commissioner to oversee a number of critical investigations by the Emergency Management Department at a critical juncture.
• The panel of Judges L. Nageshwara Rao and BR Hawaii stated: “We do not intend to prevent the extension of the term of office of the second defendant (Mishra) in the present case for reasons related to his tenure’s term expires in November 2021. We have made it clear that there will be no renewal for the second respondent.
• The court upheld the right of the central government of India to renew the presidency of the court beyond two years. But “we need to make it clear that the extension of the term of office of officials who have reached retirement age should be made only in rare and exceptional circumstances,” he added.
• The Court stated that a reasonable extension of time could be granted to facilitate the completion of ongoing investigations, but that “any extension granted to those who take over as head of corporate control after reaching retirement age should be for a short period. time. The court ruled that the Supreme Committee in charge of appointing an ED director under the CVC Act must document the reasons for such an extension.
• The government stated in court that Section 25 (d) of the CVC Act, which stipulates that the duties of the chief of the bailiff are “at least two years”, gives the government discretionary power to impose duties for more than two years, despite the fact that the retirement age is 60 years. Applied in accordance with Rule 56 of Law.
• Attorney General Tushar Mehta said that the Director of Enforcement holds an important position investigating money laundering crimes, which have some degree of cross-border and transnational ramifications and under the leadership of the current Director. The agency has now recovered nearly Rs. 9,000 in three investigations involving Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi and MehulChoksy.
• An NGO lawsuit argued by Chief Prosecutor Dushyant Dave argued that the government's decision would harm the system and allow to untie the hands of the government to keep its elect. officials under control. retire for an unreasonable time.
• The court stated, "The government does not have a restraining order to appoint a Compliance Director after two years." Regarding the words “at least two years” found in Section 25 (d) of the CVC Act, the court ruled that “no room to read words means no more than two years” and stated that the Chief Compliance Officer could be appointed to a period of more than two years in the manner prescribed by Article 25 of the CVC Law.
• In this respect, the order to renew the powers of the current head Mishra is considered reasonable, since he was the additional secretary of the Government of India at the date of the issuance of the renewal order. the claimant submits that the extension was made for some unauthorized purpose.

CASE RELEVANCE

• The Supreme Court on Wednesday approved the extension of the timeline granted to the head of the Compliance Department, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, stating that the government has the power to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer for a term of more than two years, but that extension is after the individual has been extended. The date of retirement will occur infrequently, under exceptional circumstances, and within a reasonably short time frame.
• Mishra's term expires in November 2021 and the court ruled that it should not be renewed. Mishra retired in May 2020.

Questions

1. What do we mean by CVC?
2. What is meant by superannuation period?

Share your views in the comments section.