"I Filed First, I Should Be The Lead Petitioner": ML Sharma Objects To Listing Order Of PILs Against ED Director's Term

An unexpected issue arose while the Supreme Court was considering for admission a batch of PILs filed against the extension given to the term of ED Director - who should be the lead petitioner?

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India was considering 7 petitions field challenging the extension given to the incumbent director of the Enforcement Directorate Sanjay Kumar Mishra. The petitioners included Congress leaders Dr Jaya Thakur, Randeep Singh Surjewala, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and the TMC Spokesperson Saket Gokhale, and serial PIL litigant ML Sharma.

The petition filed by Dr Jaya Thakur was listed as the first matter. When the matters were called, the bench initially passed over the matter for the appearance of the counsel on behalf of the Government of India.

At this juncture, Advocate ML Sharma (whose petition was listed as the last item) took objection to Thakur's petition being listed as the lead matter saying that he was the first one to file the petition. 

"Who would lead the matter is the question. I have the right to be the first petitioner. I had filed the petition last year", Sharma told before the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli.

Responding to Sharma, the Chief Justice of India said that Jaya Thakur's plea was listed as the lead petition since it was mentioned for urgent listing.

"Because it was mentioned, Mr Sharma. Do you want to settle the issue? I'll settle it. Whether your case is down or up, we're hearing you," the CJI said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was appearing for another petitioner, submitted that PILs should not have names of the parties as it becomes a competition to become the very first filing person.

"This would become a competition to see whose name appears in a PIL," Sankaranarayanan submitted.

The CJI directed that the matter be posted tomorrow asking the Registry to verify the correct order of the filing of the petitions.

Shankaranarayanan expressed his disappointment at the matter getting adjourned to tomorrow, despite the bench agreeing to pass over it, over the issue raised by Sharma. He said that he is not concerned with the order of the listing of the petitions so long as the matters are heard. Sharma reiterated that the matters should be listed in the order of filing.

The bench at this juncture directed the Registry to verify the correct order of the case listing and therefore directed the pleas to be listed tomorrow.

"This is how the main issue gets derailed," Shankaranarayan further submitted.

"What to do?", the CJI said while adjourning the matter for tomorrow.

The petitions challenge the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021, which allows the extension of the term of the Director of the Enforcement of Directorate up to 5 years and Central Government's decision to extend the tenure of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra.

On September 8, 2021 in the case filed by Common Cause had directed that further extension should not be given to SK Mishra, whose term as ED Director was then to end on November 16, 2021.

However, contrary to the Supreme Court's direction, the Central Government extended his term by one more year with effect from November 17, 2021, the petitioners argue. This was done by way of promulgation of an ordinance to amend the Central Vigilance Commission Act to allow an extension up to 5 years for the term of ED Director. The Ordinance was replaced with the Act which was passed in December 2021.

It has been argued in the plea that the was brought solely with the intention of giving benefit to SK Mishra. It is stated that Mishra had otherwise attained superannuation after attaining the age of 60 years in May 2020. He was initially appointed as ED Director in November 2018 for a two year period. Despite his superannuation, in November 2020, the Centre passed an order to retrospectively amend his initial appointment as 3 years. This action was challenged in the case Common Cause vs Union of India.

The petitioners contend that the extension given to Mishra is a blatant violation of the directions of the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur v UOI & Ors & connected pleas

Click Here To Read/Download Order