08-01-2007, 02:43 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>SC flays Govt for failure to send petition on Chawla to President </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
Plea was signed by 205 MPs
The Supreme Court on Tuesday was critical of the Government's failure to forward a representation by 205 MPs seeking the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla to the President of India.
Dealing with a petition filed by senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh, the court wondered how the Union Cabinet had kept the representation with itself without informing the President of its fate.
<b>The court's response was prompted by a statement given by Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium who said that the Cabinet's business rules do not "mandate" any communication to be sent to the President. Piqued by this comment, the Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhan and VS Sirpurkar said, "What kind of business rules do you (Centre) have." </b>
The representation signed by 205 Members of Parliament belonging to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had demanded the removal of Chawla on allegations that he received money for his personal trust from the MPLAD funds of prominent Congress leaders. The representation raised doubts on his integrity and fairness and sought the President to act upon their request.
The Government decided against removing Chawla as the allegations against him related to the period prior to his appointment as Election Commissioner. The decision was challenged in the Supreme Court in May 2006 as being unconstitutional as the Constitution provides "recommendation" by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) on an issue involving removal of an Election Commissioner.
Arguing the case for Singh, senior advocate Soli Sorabjee submitted that the process of dealing with the representation demanded that the Centre allow the President to seek the CEC's opinion. This is laid down under Article 324(5) of the Constitution to preserve the independence and fairness of the institution of the Election Commission from any political bias. Pointing to the facts in the present case, Sorabjee argued that it was difficult to imagine that a party whose MPs are alleged to be close to Chawla would recommend his removal.
The Bench asked the petitioner to indicate whether the President could suo moto seek the view of the CEC or whether the decision of the Centre not to consult the CEC is binding upon the President. Sorabjee agreed with the Bench to the extent that the President is to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. But concerning removal of EC, the President has to consult the CEC as this is the process provided under the Constitution to preserve the independence of the Commission. The arguments will proceed on Wednesday.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another example of abuse of power.
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
Plea was signed by 205 MPs
The Supreme Court on Tuesday was critical of the Government's failure to forward a representation by 205 MPs seeking the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla to the President of India.
Dealing with a petition filed by senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh, the court wondered how the Union Cabinet had kept the representation with itself without informing the President of its fate.
<b>The court's response was prompted by a statement given by Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium who said that the Cabinet's business rules do not "mandate" any communication to be sent to the President. Piqued by this comment, the Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhan and VS Sirpurkar said, "What kind of business rules do you (Centre) have." </b>
The representation signed by 205 Members of Parliament belonging to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had demanded the removal of Chawla on allegations that he received money for his personal trust from the MPLAD funds of prominent Congress leaders. The representation raised doubts on his integrity and fairness and sought the President to act upon their request.
The Government decided against removing Chawla as the allegations against him related to the period prior to his appointment as Election Commissioner. The decision was challenged in the Supreme Court in May 2006 as being unconstitutional as the Constitution provides "recommendation" by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) on an issue involving removal of an Election Commissioner.
Arguing the case for Singh, senior advocate Soli Sorabjee submitted that the process of dealing with the representation demanded that the Centre allow the President to seek the CEC's opinion. This is laid down under Article 324(5) of the Constitution to preserve the independence and fairness of the institution of the Election Commission from any political bias. Pointing to the facts in the present case, Sorabjee argued that it was difficult to imagine that a party whose MPs are alleged to be close to Chawla would recommend his removal.
The Bench asked the petitioner to indicate whether the President could suo moto seek the view of the CEC or whether the decision of the Centre not to consult the CEC is binding upon the President. Sorabjee agreed with the Bench to the extent that the President is to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. But concerning removal of EC, the President has to consult the CEC as this is the process provided under the Constitution to preserve the independence of the Commission. The arguments will proceed on Wednesday.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another example of abuse of power.