New Delhi: This center has taken the procedure route to extend the term of office of the Director of CBI and ED – the country’s major investigation institution.
The move has attracted fragments from the opposition who called it politically motivated to serve the ruling party.
It has also returned the focus on previous examples for the promise of this sensitive pole, some of them ended in the Supreme Court.
The following is a view on the appointment procedure and some past controversy that involves the appointment of this high meeting.
The Central Investigation Bureau (CBI) * CBI in Avatar currently appeared in April 1963 through the settlement of the Ministry of Home, and was regulated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Law in 1946.
* Now under the Ministry of Personnel, public complaints and pensions * Dereked from the right to Information on the appointment of the CBI Director * The CBI Director was appointed in accordance with the provisions under the Law of the Delhi Special Police (1946) and the amendment in it carried by Local Local and Lokayuktas, 2013 * Appointment was carried out by the Center for Recommendations by the Three Member Appointment Committee * The designation committee consists of the Prime Minister as Chairperson, Opposition Leader (LOP) in Lok Sabha and the Chair of the Indian Judge, or the Supreme Court Judge nominated by it * If there is no LOP recognized, the leader of the largest single party is included in the Committee * Law Central citizenship commission, 2003 improved the ownership of the CBI Director in 2 years when the remittance At the Supreme Court * APEX court in the order of 2019 mandated that no officer with the remaining term of office of less than six months can be considered for the CBI head post * The court also decided that the director would remain in the office for ‘not less than 2 years,’ and can Transferred Only with the Approval of the Committee appoints the Enforcement Directorate (ED) * Ed is under the Ministry of Finance’s Revenue Department * Responsible for fighting economic crimes and enforcement of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Law, 1999) and PMLA (Money Laundering Law Prevention, 2002 ) * It consists of IAS, IPS and IRS officers and IRS, and also officers promoted from the appointment of Cadre Ed Director Ed member Other Committee is Secretary in Finance (Revenue), Home and Personnel & Training * Ownership must be “no less than two year, “and each transfer must be approved by a PPIPPING committee when things land on the Supreme Court * When the Director of Ed Cumbent SK Mishra was given a one-year extension in November 2020, an NGO moved the Supreme Court to the decision * The court noted that “no less than two years” could not be interpreted.
As “no more than two years,” and increased the extension * but it also clarified that there was no further extension given to Mishra, and his term of office must end in November 2021 the procedure was promulgated on November 14, 2021 to open the way for a “Director CBI or Ed Petahana get three extensions of each year, after a period of two years ends.
Each extension must be recommended by the Committee, recording in writing why it will be in “national interests.” The time, and why opposition cries because of procedures It has been promulgated right in front of the parliamentary winter session due later this month.
Congress’ Manish Tewari questioned the mechanism, called it “Ordinance route to overthrow the function of parliamentary lawyers.” “Ordonance Raj, favorite route Modi Govt, past parliament supervision 14 days before parliament meet.
The extension per se told the APEX court, “Tweet from other Congress members Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
The party also said that civil servants in key positions were being rewarded with extensions for their compliance with the ruling party and” hunting “opposition.