The Centre has increased the tenure of Enforcement Directorate director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by another year in violation of a Supreme Court directive that no further extension can be granted to the officer beyond November 18, 2021, an RTI activist has alleged.

According to Anjali Bhardwaj, the activist, the authorities had also declined to share under the RTI Act details of the recommendation made by the selection committee on extending the tenure of Mishra, including the reasons recorded in writing for such a step and the minutes of the meetings of the panel.

While declining to share the details, the authorities cited Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act that 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, Bhardwaj said.

“However, 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,” she added.

Mishra was to retire in November 2020. But the Centre had extended his tenure by a year, a decision challenged in the Supreme Court by the NGO Common Cause. The court, after hearing the matter this year, said it would not interfere with the government order but asked the government not to further extend the tenure of Mishra. However, according to Bhardwaj, on November 17, 2021, the Centre further extended the tenure of Mishra for a period of one year. This came a day before him extended term was to end.

The order was subsequent to an ordinance issued by the Centre on November 14 amending the CVC Act to allow for the tenure of the ED director to be extended up to one year at a time for a total of five years.

Nevertheless, the ordinance required the selection committee to record the reasons for extension in writing.

“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…,” the part of the ordinance stated.

The office order dated November 17 did not disclose the reasons recorded by the selection committee for the extension.