‘Subsequent changes in law can’t be ground to recall earlier order’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Centre’s application for a recall of its September 8, 2021 direction on the tenure of the director of the Enforcement Directorate, saying “subsequent changes in law cannot be a ground for recalling or modifying an earlier court order”.

A bench of justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared in the court on behalf of the Centre, that they have already moved an application for modifications in the order.

“I am not on merits. I only wish to submit that so far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on this court’s September 8, 2021 order, we have already moved an application for appropriate modifications in the said order. This court has issued a notice in that application,” Mehta said and urged the bench to tag its application with a batch of petitions challenging the extension of the tenure of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra.

“We have already indicated that we would not entertain such an application since it is almost in the nature of a review,” the bench told Mehta.

The solicitor general said there have been subsequent legislative changes and therefore, the application was filed.

The bench said, “Subsequent changes in law cannot be a ground for recalling or modifying an earlier judgment or order of this court.”

At the outset, Mehta said the petition filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, questioning the Centre’s decision to give a third extension to Mishra and the amendments made to the CVC Act that allows extending the ED director’s tenure by up to five years, was based on a top court order passed on September 8, 2021.

Mehta said he needs some time to file a reply to the plea.

The bench said the petition will be heard along with Centre’s application and listed the matter after three weeks.

On September 8, 2021, the apex court had upheld the Centre’s power to extend Mishra’s tenure, but clarified that an extension should be given to officers after the age of superannuation only in rare and exceptional cases. The top court had also made it clear that no further extension can be given to Mishra.