The Narendra Modi government has citing exemptions under the Right to Information Act to not make public what the Selection Committee recommended.
Sanjay Kumar Mishra. Photo: Twitter/IRS Association
New Delhi: After extending the tenure of the Enforcement Directorate chief, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, by a year through an ordinance last month, the Union government has now refused to reveal the reasons behind the move.
The decision had come under heavy criticism from the opposition. Apart from the ED chief, the Union had also granted an extension in a similar manner to the head of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Subodh Kumar Jaiswal, in contravention of Supreme Court directions.
While the opposition has accused the Centre of further subverting the independence of the two premier investigating agencies, the Narendra Modi government has thus far dodged questions relating to the move, citing exemptions under the Right to Information Act.
After an ordinance was promulgated to extend Mishra’s tenure and he was granted an extension till November 18, 2022, a petition under the RTI Act was filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj with the Department of Revenue on November 24 seeking details of the move.
Mishra, a 1984-batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer of the Income Tax Department cadre, was granted the extension through an order issued by the Department, which read: “President of India is pleased to extend the tenure of shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, IRS (IT:84006) as Director of Enforcement for a period of one year beyond 18.11.2021, ie, upto 18.11.2022, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.”
He was earlier appointed the ED director for a period of two years by an order on November 19, 2018. Subsequently, on November 13, 2020, the appointment letter was modified retrospectively by the Union government and his two-year term was made into three years.
SC directed no further extension to Mishra, Centre brought ordinance
This 2020 order was challenged before the Supreme Court, which upheld the extension order but said that no further extension can be given to Mishra. However, the government in November this year issued two ordinances that gave it powers to extend the tenure of the directors of the ED and the CBI up to three years after the mandated term of two years.
According to Bhardwaj, this ordinance to amend the CVC Act was subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated September 8, 2021, in Common Cause vs Union of India & Ors. The apex court had then held: “Though we have upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of two years, we should make it clear that extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases.”
The Supreme Court had further stated that, “Reasonable period of extension can be granted to facilitate the completion of ongoing investigations only after reasons are recorded by the Committee constituted under Section 25 (a) of the CVC Act. Any extension of tenure granted to persons holding the post of Director of Enforcement after attaining the age of superannuation should be for a short period. We do not intend to interfere with the extension of tenure of the second respondent in the instant case for the reason that his tenure is coming to an end in November, 2021. We make it clear that no further extension shall be granted to the second respondent.”
Selection Committee recommendations sought through RTI appeal
Bhardwaj said she filed an application under the RTI Act seeking a copy of the recommendation made by the selection committee on extending the ED director’s tenure, including reasons recorded in writing for granting the extension. She also sought a copy of the minutes of the meetings of the selection committee.
However, information on these points was denied by the Department of Revenue by citing Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act which exempts the disclosure of cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the council of ministers, secretaries and other officers, till such time that the matter is under consideration and is not complete.
`Two meetings of Selection Committee were held in November 2020, 2021 respectively’
In her application filed with the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance on November 24 this year, Bhardwaj had sought information on five points pertaining to the Committee constituted under Section 25(A) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003 for appointing the ED director.
To the first of her queries, the CPIO responded on December 3 stating that two meeting of the committee were held since October 1, 2020. It also stated that these meetings were held on November 11, 2020 and November 15, 2021.
To her request for a copy of the minutes, discussions, proceedings, verbatim recording of the proceedings of all the meetings of the committee held since October 1, 2020, the Department responded by saying that “information is exempted under Section 8(1) of RTI Act, 2005”.
Copy of recommendations of Selection Committee denied
The Department, however, did disclose the names and designations of persons who attended each of these meetings. To this fourth query, it said the members who attended the meeting on November 11, 2020 were Central Vigilance Commissioner Suresh N. Patel; Commissioner, Vigilance Sanjay Kothari; Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and Secretary DoPT Ajay Kumar Bhalla; and Secretary Finance Ajay Bhushan Pandey.
Similarly, the meeting on November 15, 2021 was attended by CVC Suresh N. Patel; Secretary Home Ajay Kumar Bhalla; Secretary DoPT Pradip Kumar Tripathi; and Secretary Revenue Tarun Bajaj.
The Department also denied the last query of Bhardwaj in which she sought a copy of any recommendation made by the Committee by again citing Section 8(i) of the RTI Act.
`Denial of information a violation of RTI Act’
Reacting to the denial of information, Bhardwaj said, “a perusal of the RTI application would confirm that none of the information sought pertains to cabinet papers. Therefore, the denial of information appears to be in violation of the RTI Act.”
Bharadwaj also stated that it was through the Office Order, dated November 17, 2021, that the government extended the tenure of Sanjay Kumar Mishra for a period of one year beyond November 18. “It is pertinent to note that the said Office Order was passed just one day before the extended tenure of Mishra was due to expire on 18.11.2021. The order was subsequent to the Ordinance issued by the Union of India on 14.11.2021 amending the CVC Act to allow for tenure of the ED Director to be extended up to one year at a time for a total of 5 years.”
Bhardwaj added that “the ordinance required the selection committee to record the reasons for extension in writing,” and pointed out that it read: “Provided that the period for which the Director of Enforcement holds the office on his initial appointment may, in public interest, on the recommendation of the Committee under clause(a) and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended up to one year at a time…”
However, she said, “the Office Order regarding the extension did not disclose the reasons recorded by the Selection Committee. The denial of information under the RTI Act means that the public has no access to relevant details regarding the reasons for the extension.”
SOURCE ; THE WIRE
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments