New Delhi: Congress leader Randeep Surjewala and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra have moved Supreme Court challenging the Union government’s decision to extend the tenure of directors of CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) and ED (Enforcement Directorate) up to five years.LiveLaw has reported that Surjewala in his petition, filed through his lawyer Abishek Jebaraj, said, “Extension of tenure, in this adhoc and episodic fashion, in fact reaffirms the control of the Executive over investigative agencies and is directly antithetical to their independent functioning.”In a tweet, Moitra, the Krishnanagar MP, wrote of her petition on the same subject having been filed in the Supreme Court. Moitra has alleged that the ordinances are contrary to the apex court’s judgements.My petition just filed in Supreme Court challenging Union Ordinances on extension to CBI & ED Director tenures being contrary to SC own judgements— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) November 17, 2021On November 14, Sunday, President Ram Nath Kovind upon the advice of the Union government promulgated two Ordinances to allow the extension of CBI and ED chiefs from existing two years to up to five years – enabling the government to extend tenure thrice for a period of one year in both cases. ED chief Sanjay Kumar Mishra, whose term was to expire on Thursday, November 18, was given an extension by one year, relying on the latest changes. The decision to extend tenures and the government taking the Ordinance route to push for changes have not gone down well with opposition parties, which faulted the government’s decision to bypass a discussion in the parliament before allowing for such changes.Also read: Move to Allow Extension of CBI, ED Tenures Seen as Attack on Independence of Probe AgenciesThe petition filed by Surjewala argued that the said decisions by the government go against the past judgments. It recalled that in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court had made it clear that there is a need to ensure a fixed tenure in the case of CBI director.On the other hand, the Surjewala’s petition also pointed to the Independent Review Committee, formed in 1997, which suggested that the CBI director should have a minimum of two years tenure, and made it clear that a “change in the existing Tenure Rules [is] not recommended”, according to LiveLaw.As for the extension of the ED director’s tenure, the Surjewala’s petition referred to the Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors case where the court had held that extension to the ED director should be given only in “rare and exceptional cases” and only for a short period of time.“These Ordinances go against the aforementioned rulings that give much-needed stability to the tenure of Director of Enforcement and the Director, CBI to protect them from political interference,” Surjewala’s petition said.While stating that a fixed tenure is an “essential element” to ensure the independent functioning of government officials, Surjewala’s petition feared that “a piecemeal extension system, as envisioned by the Impugned Ordinances and Notification, creates a perverse incentive for officials to serve at the pleasure of the Government”.With the parliament set to convene in another fortnight, Surjewala’s petition questioned the tearing hurry with which the government pushed for extensions using the Ordinance route.“The Ordinances provide no reasons – especially reasons in support of public interest – for the insertion of these provisions…These investigative agencies were created to serve the public but with these amendments they are being subordinated in a clear and malicious fashion to serve the will of the Executive,” Surjewala’s petition added.While appealing for the said Ordinances to be set aside, Surjewala’s petition said they were open to judicial review as it amounted to “frivolous misuse of Ordinance route to bypass Parliament” as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in DC Wadhwa v. State of Bihar.Note: This article has been updated since publication with news on Mahua Moitra’s petition.