IRS Officer Rahul Navin Appointed Acting Director of Enforcement Directorate

September 16, 2023

President Droupadi Murmu has appointed Rahul Navin, an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer from the 1993 batch, as the Acting Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Rahul Navin currently serves as the Special Director-Chief Vigilance Officer at the ED headquarters. This appointment follows the cessation of tenure for Sanjay Kumar Mishra, IRS-84 batch, who had been serving as the Director of Enforcement in the ED. Mishra’s tenure was initially extended by the Supreme Court until September 15, after the court deemed the previous extensions beyond September 8, 2021, as “not valid in law.” The appointment of Rahul Navin signifies a significant change in leadership at the ED and comes amid legal challenges regarding the tenure of the ED chief.

What led to the cessation of Sanjay Kumar Mishra’s tenure as the Director of Enforcement in the ED?

Sanjay Kumar Mishra’s tenure as the ED chief ended due to legal challenges and the Supreme Court’s decision to allow him to continue only until September 15.

Why did the Supreme Court grant an extension for Sanjay Kumar Mishra’s tenure?

The Supreme Court granted an extension in “larger public and national interest,” although Mishra’s term was initially set to end on July 31. The court considered this extension for the sake of continuity in the ED’s leadership.

What were the key legal challenges related to Sanjay Kumar Mishra’s tenure as the Director of Enforcement?

Legal challenges included a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, arguing that Mishra’s extended tenure violated Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act. Additionally, the government’s ordinances in 2021 allowed for extended tenures, further complicating the matter.

How did the ordinances passed in November 2021 affect the tenure of chiefs in organizations like the CBI and ED?

The ordinances allowed the government to keep chiefs in their posts for one year after their initial two-year terms and provided for multiple one-year extensions, potentially extending their tenures to a maximum of five years.

Why did Justice Gavai express concerns about the 2021 case, and what did he believe required reconsideration?

Justice Gavai believed that the 2021 case had not been rightly decided and required reconsideration. He argued that the case did not involve a simple question of extension, sparking further legal discussions.

« Previous Post Next Post »