Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India (1992)

Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India landmark judgement addresses amendments regarding the extension of the tenure of the Director of Enforcement. The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol.

Facts of Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India

Sanjay Kumar Mishra (Respondent No. 2) was serving as the Principal Special Director in the Directorate of Enforcement and had been appointed as Director of Enforcement for a two-year term. However, on 13th November 2020, the President of India amended the order, extending his tenure to three years.

In response, a writ petition was filed in the case Common Cause v. Union of India (2020), seeking the quashing of the order dated 13th November 2020 and asking for the appointment of the Director of Enforcement to be made as per Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (CVC Act). The Court dismissed the petition but ordered that no further extensions be granted to Respondent No. 2.

Subsequently, on 14th November 2021, the President promulgated the Civil Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, adding new provisos to Section 25(d) of the CVC Act, along with amendments to the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (DSPE Act). On the same day, new provisions were added to the Fundamental Rules (F.R.) of 1992.

The Central Vigilance Commission, in a meeting held on 15th November 2021, decided to extend the tenure of the Director of Enforcement for another year, until 18th November 2022. Later, the Parliament enacted the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021.

Despite petitions challenging these amendments, Respondent No. 2’s tenure was further extended until 18th November 2023. A writ petition was filed seeking to quash the extension order.

Issue Involved

1. Whether the amendments to Section 25 of the CVC Act and Section 4B(1) of the DSPE Act, along with changes to the Fundamental Rules, are unconstitutional and should be set aside?
2. Whether the extensions of the Director of Enforcement’s tenure for one year (on 17th November 2021 and 17th November 2022) are legally valid and should be upheld?

Observations in Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India

Regarding Issue (i)

The Court in Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India examined the scope of judicial review, emphasising that laws cannot be declared unconstitutional without substantial grounds. It identified two key justifications for challenging a law’s constitutionality:

1. Lack of legislative competence on the subject matter.
2. Violation of fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions.

The challenge to the amendments argued that the legislation was arbitrary. However, the Court noted that the amendments allowed the government to extend the tenure of the incumbent Director by one year at a time, subject to a maximum of five years, and only if recommended by a committee in the public interest. This procedure ensures that the extension is not granted at the sole discretion of the officeholder.

The Court further affirmed that the amendments did not contravene the principles established in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) and upheld the constitutionality of the legislation.

Regarding Issue (ii)

In the case Common Cause v. Union of India (2021), the Court had earlier challenged the extension of tenure granted by the President on 13th November 2020. Although the Court did not annul the law in that case, it issued a binding writ of mandamus. 

The Court in Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India ruled that legislative actions cannot negate the effect of a judicial order by undermining its foundational basis. The Court concluded that the legislation’s impact on the previous judgement was not valid grounds for nullifying it.

Final Order

The Court in Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India upheld the validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021. However, it declared the extension of Respondent No. 2’s tenure illegal. Respondent No. 2 was allowed to remain in office until 31st July 2023.

Conclusion

This Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India judgement affirms the constitutionality of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, which provided for extensions to the tenure of the Director of Enforcement. It also reiterates the principle that legislative acts cannot invalidate a court’s mandamus order through new legislation.