DR. JAYA THAKUR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 11-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 533 : 2023 INSC 616
533
DR. JAYA THAKUR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 456 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Service Law – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 –
s.25(d) – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – s.4B(1) –
Fundamental Rules, 1922 – Incumbents in the office of the Director
of CBI /Director of Enforcement – Extension of tenure – Validity of
Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 (whereby two
new provisos were inserted to s.25(d) of the Central Vigilance
Commission Act), the Delhi Special Police Establishment
(Amendment) Act, 2021 (whereby two new provisos were inserted to
s.4B(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946) and
the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (whereby the fifth proviso
to F.R. 56(d) was substituted by a new proviso) – Challenge to –
Held: The argument that the impugned Amendments grant arbitrary
power to the Government to extend the tenure of the Director of
ED/CBI and has the effect of wiping out the insulation of these
offices from extraneous pressures, is not tenable – It is not at the
sweet-will of the Government that the extensions can be granted to
the incumbents in the office of the Director of CBI /Director of
Enforcement – What has been directed by this Court in the case of
Vineet Narain and in subsequent judgments relied on by the
petitioners is that such Director should have a minimum tenure of
two years irrespective of their date of superannuation – By the
impugned Amendments, the said period is not tinkered with – What
has been done is only a power is given to extend their period for a
period of one year at a time, subject to a maximum number of three
such extensions – However, this has to be done only when the
Committee which is constituted to recommend their appointment finds
it necessary, in public interest, to grant such extension – It is further
required to record the reasons in writing for the said purpose –
When a Committee can be trusted with regard to recommending their
initial appointment, there is no reason as to why such Committees
cannot be trusted to consider as to whether the extension is required
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
to be given in public interest or not – Challenge to validity of Central
Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Delhi Special
Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Fundamental
(Amendment) Rules, 2021 not tenable.
Mandamus – Nullification of, by enactment – Issue of legislative
override – Intrusion into judicial power by the legislature –
Incumbents in the office of the Director of CBI /Director of
Enforcement – Extension of tenure – Whether the impugned orders
dated 17th November, 2021 and 17th November 2022, which granted
extensions to the tenure of respondent no.2-Director of Enforcement
for a period of one year each, were not valid in light of the specific
mandamus issued by this Court in the earlier case of Common Cause
(2021) that no further extension shall be granted to respondent no.2
– Held: Effect of the judgments of this court can be nullified by a
legislative act removing the basis of the judgment – Such law can
be retrospective – However, retrospective amendment should be
reasonable and not arbitrary and must not be violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution – Defect
pointed out should be cured such that the basis of the judgment
pointing out the defect is removed – Nullification of mandamus by
an enactment, however, would be impermissible legislative exercise
– Transgression of constitutional limitations and intrusion into the
judicial power by the legislature is violative of the principle of
separation of powers, the rule of law and of Art.14 of the Constitution
– In the case of Common Cause (2021), this Court had specifically
issued a mandamus that no further extension shall be granted to
respondent no.2 – The Union of India and respondent No.2 were
both parties in the proceedings before this Court in Common Cause
(2021) – The mandamus issued to be parties was binding on them –
Therefore, respondent No.1 could not have issued orders dated 17th
November 2021 and 17th November 2022 (granting extensions to
the tenure of respondent No.2 for a period of one year each) in
breach of the mandamus issued by this Court in Common Cause
(2021) – The impugned orders dated 17th November 2021 and 17th
November 2022 are according

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.