In a move that has sparked heated debates in legal and political circles, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Enforcement Directorate (ED) director SK Mishra to continue in his position until September 15 has raised concerns about the Modi government’s intentions. Despite acknowledging that Mishra’s extension was illegal, the court’s leniency has given rise to apprehensions that the government might resort to manipulation to retain him and defy the court’s directives. The government’s primary argument centres around the crucial peer review of the inter-governmental organization Financial Action Task Force (FATF). However, critics have dismissed this as a mere façade, as the ED is not a constitutional or statutory body, and any competent officer from the rank of central services could represent India at the FATF review.
Recently, the Modi government approached the apex court yet again, this time seeking an extension for Mishra until October 15, citing the critical juncture of the FATF review and the need for continuity. However, such a move has been met with scepticism and accusations of undermining the court’s authority. The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling explicitly denied any further extensions for SK Mishra, emphasising that it should only occur based on recommendations from committees in the public interest and with written reasons. By considering the government’s request, the court risks eroding its authority and public trust in the Indian democratic system.
The motive behind the government’s relentless pursuit of Mishra’s extension has raised eyebrows in political circles. With prominent opposition leaders under investigation, Mishra’s assistance is perceived as crucial for the ruling party before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Sources suggest that Mishra has prepared strong cases against these leaders, making him the preferred choice to handle follow-up actions. In the face of an emerging campaign by opposition parties exposing the government’s policies and alleged failures, Modi and RSS mentor Mohan Bhagwat view the fight against corruption as a pivotal issue. This has led to a renewed emphasis on investigating opposition leaders under the pretext of combating corruption. FATF, as an intergovernmental body aimed at combating money laundering and terror financing, adds complexity to the situation.
While India, among 200 other countries, has committed to implementing FATF standards, some prominent opposition leaders have already faced charges of money laundering under what critics perceive as a well-designed plan to implicate and incarcerate them. The liberal and democratic forces are gravely concerned that the government may succeed in convincing the court to allow Mishra to continue despite the Supreme Court’s earlier stance. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s argument that Mishra’s role represents the country in a vital international body like the UN has resonated with the court, further fueling worries about the court’s independence.
The situation surrounding SK Mishra’s tenure as ED director has shed light on the delicate balance between government authority and judicial independence. The Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain the government’s repeated requests for extensions has fuelled concerns that the court may be perceived as yielding to political pressures. Such perceptions could have far-reaching implications for the judiciary’s credibility and its ability to uphold the rule of law impartially. As the case continues to unfold, the apex court must reaffirm its commitment to the principles of justice and maintain its autonomy to safeguard the trust of the Indian public in its democratic institutions.
