Why in News? 

Supreme Court stated that a legislative act to nullify a judgment, without taking away its basis, is an impermissible exercise. 

The above-mentioned observation came against the extension of term of Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Sanjay Kumar Mishra. 

The Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2021) directed that that Sanjay Kumar Mishra should not be given further extensions. 

However, the Union Government extended his tenure two times after that, in November 2021 and November 2022. 

The court made the observations in the matter of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. 

Background  

Respondent, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, who was working as Principal Special Director in the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was appointed as Director of Enforcement for a period of two years in 2018. 

According to the appointment order, he was set to retire two years later on reaching the age of 60 years. 

However, in November 2020, the government retrospectively revised the order, increasing his tenure from two years to three years. 

The extension of tenure was challenged in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (2021). 

In this case a division bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao held that extensions could only be granted in ‘rare and exceptional cases’ for a short period of time. 

Subsequently, the court in the above-mentioned case directed that no further extension was to be granted to the chief of the Directorate of Enforcement.  

Court’s Observations 

The bench observed that the only way for legislature to nullify the effect of a judgment is by taking away its base or curing the defects in the law.  

However, an enactment which merely nullifies a judgment is unconstitutional. 

The bench further observed that the nullification of mandamus by an enactment would be impermissible legislative exercise. 

Legal Provisions 

Mandamus 

It is among the types of writs mentioned under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. 

The literal meaning of mandamus is “we command”.   

The court issues it in the form of a direction to public authority to perform a particular task.  

It must be filed in good faith by the person having the legal right.     

It can be issued against government, public officials, inferior courts, tribunals and public corporations.     

It is issued against the public authority denying performing its duty or has failed to do so.    It cannot be issued against private individuals, President and Governors, and Chief Justice.   

Directorate of Enforcement (ED) 

ED was established on 1 May 1956 with its headquarters in New Delhi. 

It is a multi-disciplinary organization mandated with investigation of offences of money laundering and violations of foreign exchange laws. 

It is responsible to the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance. 

The director of the ED is appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003.