07-25-2006, 03:06 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Centre goes out of the way to save Chawla's job </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Hitting two birds with one stone, the Centre on Monday justified giving a clean chit to Election Commissioner Navin Chawla by claiming that the power of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) to give his opinion on any Election Commissioner's removal was subject to the approval by the Council of Ministers. This interpretation by the Centre is bound to generate a controversy since the Constitution empowers the CEC to act on removal of an EC on a presidential reference.Â
Experts feel that while the Constitution is silent on the role of the Union Council of Ministers, and that there are grey areas on whether the President can refer the matter to CEC on his own, there is nothing to empower the Centre to withhold any such reference if a complaint is received against the EC.
Interpreting Article 324 (5) of the Constitution pertaining to removal of Election Commissioners (EC), the Centre in an affidavit filed in Supreme Court said, "In the matters of appointment (of EC), the President is aided and advised by the Council of Ministers." Likewise, it added, "in the matters relating to removal of an EC or CEC, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers becomes relevant in the matter."
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by senior BJP member and Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Jaswant Singh seeking Chawla's removal.
But the Centre's response was in stark contrast to the response filed by outgoing CEC BB Tandon. In his affidavit filed before the court, Tandon interpreted the provision of Article 324 (5) to suggest "if a complaint or petition by any person or group of persons is addressed to the President seeking removal of EC, the CEC comes into the picture only when such complaint or petition is referred by the President to CEC for his recommendation in the matter."
The CEC did not talk about such reference made to him by the Council of Ministers as his conclusion was drawn from a bare reading of the Constitution.
Article 324(5) states, "...any Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from the office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner." According to a legal expert, who did not wish to be named, "It is the CEC who is to decide upon the culpability of EC, and by not referring the petition to him, the Centre is trying to block the constitutional process."
This point also found mention in the petition filed by Singh who alleged that the Centre had bypassed the constitutional process to shield Chawla. Instead of obtaining CEC's opinion, Chawla was given a clean chit after consultation with the Attorney General.
Scripting its tailor-made response to suit the convenience of Chawla, the Centre clarified that the decision against removing Chawla was an internal decision on which the Attorney General was not consulted. By stating so, the Centre escaped from filing the A-G's opinion, which the court had directed to produce in a sealed cover on the previous hearing.
On the reference to CEC, the affidavit noted, "Only if the representations disclose any kind of 'intelligible and cogent' material that the Executive Government would be justified in proceeding to the second step of referring the matter for the views of the CEC." It further contended that if such an eventuality arises, the CEC's views would not be binding since it will have to meet the "concurrence" of both the Government and CEC.
Hitting out at the CEC's suggestion stating his willingness to conduct an enquiry and make recommendations if the court directs the Centre to forward the memorandum against Chawla, the Centre commented, "He (CEC) cannot be afforded the position of being the unilateral adjudicator to decide on matters of removal of Election Commissioners..."
Snubbing CEC Tandon for his remarks on Chawla, it added, "...in any event he (CEC) cannot be called upon to comment upon the suitability of his peers, namely, his colleagues who have been appointed to the Election Commission unless the Executive Government desires."
Vindicating its stand regarding Chawla, the Centre reiterated, "The Government has examined the contents of the said representations and does not find them worthy of any merit whatsoever." It even debunked the adverse comments made by the Justice Shah Commission enquiring into the excesses during the Emergency as "stale" and "belated".
Responding to the allegation regarding Chawla's alleged proximity to Congress leaders, the Centre dismissed the same as "unfounded" making out no case of illegality.
The petition had alleged several Congress MPs including Ambika Soni, Karan Singh and AA Khan had donated large amounts from their MP Local Area Development Fund into Lepra India Trust, run by Chawla's wife. On this ground it was contended that having such a person in the place of Election Commissioner would jeopardise the fairness and independence of the institution of Election Commission.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Hitting two birds with one stone, the Centre on Monday justified giving a clean chit to Election Commissioner Navin Chawla by claiming that the power of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) to give his opinion on any Election Commissioner's removal was subject to the approval by the Council of Ministers. This interpretation by the Centre is bound to generate a controversy since the Constitution empowers the CEC to act on removal of an EC on a presidential reference.Â
Experts feel that while the Constitution is silent on the role of the Union Council of Ministers, and that there are grey areas on whether the President can refer the matter to CEC on his own, there is nothing to empower the Centre to withhold any such reference if a complaint is received against the EC.
Interpreting Article 324 (5) of the Constitution pertaining to removal of Election Commissioners (EC), the Centre in an affidavit filed in Supreme Court said, "In the matters of appointment (of EC), the President is aided and advised by the Council of Ministers." Likewise, it added, "in the matters relating to removal of an EC or CEC, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers becomes relevant in the matter."
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by senior BJP member and Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Jaswant Singh seeking Chawla's removal.
But the Centre's response was in stark contrast to the response filed by outgoing CEC BB Tandon. In his affidavit filed before the court, Tandon interpreted the provision of Article 324 (5) to suggest "if a complaint or petition by any person or group of persons is addressed to the President seeking removal of EC, the CEC comes into the picture only when such complaint or petition is referred by the President to CEC for his recommendation in the matter."
The CEC did not talk about such reference made to him by the Council of Ministers as his conclusion was drawn from a bare reading of the Constitution.
Article 324(5) states, "...any Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from the office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner." According to a legal expert, who did not wish to be named, "It is the CEC who is to decide upon the culpability of EC, and by not referring the petition to him, the Centre is trying to block the constitutional process."
This point also found mention in the petition filed by Singh who alleged that the Centre had bypassed the constitutional process to shield Chawla. Instead of obtaining CEC's opinion, Chawla was given a clean chit after consultation with the Attorney General.
Scripting its tailor-made response to suit the convenience of Chawla, the Centre clarified that the decision against removing Chawla was an internal decision on which the Attorney General was not consulted. By stating so, the Centre escaped from filing the A-G's opinion, which the court had directed to produce in a sealed cover on the previous hearing.
On the reference to CEC, the affidavit noted, "Only if the representations disclose any kind of 'intelligible and cogent' material that the Executive Government would be justified in proceeding to the second step of referring the matter for the views of the CEC." It further contended that if such an eventuality arises, the CEC's views would not be binding since it will have to meet the "concurrence" of both the Government and CEC.
Hitting out at the CEC's suggestion stating his willingness to conduct an enquiry and make recommendations if the court directs the Centre to forward the memorandum against Chawla, the Centre commented, "He (CEC) cannot be afforded the position of being the unilateral adjudicator to decide on matters of removal of Election Commissioners..."
Snubbing CEC Tandon for his remarks on Chawla, it added, "...in any event he (CEC) cannot be called upon to comment upon the suitability of his peers, namely, his colleagues who have been appointed to the Election Commission unless the Executive Government desires."
Vindicating its stand regarding Chawla, the Centre reiterated, "The Government has examined the contents of the said representations and does not find them worthy of any merit whatsoever." It even debunked the adverse comments made by the Justice Shah Commission enquiring into the excesses during the Emergency as "stale" and "belated".
Responding to the allegation regarding Chawla's alleged proximity to Congress leaders, the Centre dismissed the same as "unfounded" making out no case of illegality.
The petition had alleged several Congress MPs including Ambika Soni, Karan Singh and AA Khan had donated large amounts from their MP Local Area Development Fund into Lepra India Trust, run by Chawla's wife. On this ground it was contended that having such a person in the place of Election Commissioner would jeopardise the fairness and independence of the institution of Election Commission.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->