08-03-2007, 02:15 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>EC takes U-turn in SC </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Tells court it can suo motu recommend commissioner's removal
In a major U-turn, which could have serious bearing on the fate of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla,<b> the Election Commission on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it enjoyed suo motu powers to recommend the removal of ECs if a petition is moved before it</b>.
Significantly,<b> in June 2006 the then CEC BB Tandon had filed an affidavit before the SC stating that the Commission could proceed against its members only if a reference was received by the President</b>. Tandon's affidavit came in response to a petition filed by senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh seeking removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla for allegedly receiving funds for a trust run by his wife from MPLAD scheme of Congress leaders.
The BJP leaders had questioned Chawla's neutrality on the basis of his close link with the Congress. The matter came to the court after the Centre gave a clean chit to Chawla without consulting the CEC, who expressed helplessness in initiating any action without Presidential reference since the NDA petition was submitted to the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Making a departure from its earlier view, the Commission said,<b> "We recognise that in any given case the Election Commission can suo motu recommend removal (of Election Commissioner)." Finding that the court was little convinced of the Commission's view, advocate Meenakshi Arora went to the extent to suggest, "my statement can be recorded as it's on instruction of the CEC".</b>
But the Bench of Justices Ashok Bhan and VS Sirpurkar asked the Commission to file an affidavit by Monday indicating its stand and the reason for its earlier stand.
The recent statement of the EC is all set to change the course of this case since the Bench has already expressed its intent to end the case by directing the CEC to look into the NDA representation. In this regard, the Bench indicated that the petitioner may be granted the liberty to approach the EC directly.
<b>Senior advocate Arun Jaitley, appearing for the petitioner, stated that in the event such an order is passed, it must clearly indicate the CEC's admission that it could recommend the removal suo motu.</b>
But the Centre opposed the court's suggestion indicating it would amount to allowing the petition. Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium said, <b>"CEC is intended to be a safety valve for purposes of removal of EC. It's one thing to say that in some extreme cases the CEC can take suo motu notice. But to assert suo motu recommending powers will run against the scheme of Parliament."</b>
Reacting to this argument, the Bench said,<b> "This was not the intention of Constitution framers that the CEC will not have powers. The Election Commission has to be insulated, it is an institution headed by a person having same status as that of a Supreme Court judge."</b> Putting full faith in the Commission, the Bench added,<b> "we expect that he (CEC) will act as per the advice according to law".</b>
Elaborating the scheme of Constitution providing for removal of Election Commissioner under Article 324(5), the Bench said, <b>"The Government will have the power. But in that, you have to get the opinion of CEC." It further held the petitioner's right to obtain the recommendation from CEC asking the Centre to file a detailed reply on all the above counts. </b>
The Bench noted that its suggestion does not intend to make out a case against Chawla. In an oblique reference the conservative approach of the Centre towards Chawla, the Bench added, "See it from the Constitution point of view and not X, Y or Z. They'll be there for two or three years." The matter is expected to come up for hearing on Tuesday next.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Tells court it can suo motu recommend commissioner's removal
In a major U-turn, which could have serious bearing on the fate of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla,<b> the Election Commission on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it enjoyed suo motu powers to recommend the removal of ECs if a petition is moved before it</b>.
Significantly,<b> in June 2006 the then CEC BB Tandon had filed an affidavit before the SC stating that the Commission could proceed against its members only if a reference was received by the President</b>. Tandon's affidavit came in response to a petition filed by senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh seeking removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla for allegedly receiving funds for a trust run by his wife from MPLAD scheme of Congress leaders.
The BJP leaders had questioned Chawla's neutrality on the basis of his close link with the Congress. The matter came to the court after the Centre gave a clean chit to Chawla without consulting the CEC, who expressed helplessness in initiating any action without Presidential reference since the NDA petition was submitted to the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Making a departure from its earlier view, the Commission said,<b> "We recognise that in any given case the Election Commission can suo motu recommend removal (of Election Commissioner)." Finding that the court was little convinced of the Commission's view, advocate Meenakshi Arora went to the extent to suggest, "my statement can be recorded as it's on instruction of the CEC".</b>
But the Bench of Justices Ashok Bhan and VS Sirpurkar asked the Commission to file an affidavit by Monday indicating its stand and the reason for its earlier stand.
The recent statement of the EC is all set to change the course of this case since the Bench has already expressed its intent to end the case by directing the CEC to look into the NDA representation. In this regard, the Bench indicated that the petitioner may be granted the liberty to approach the EC directly.
<b>Senior advocate Arun Jaitley, appearing for the petitioner, stated that in the event such an order is passed, it must clearly indicate the CEC's admission that it could recommend the removal suo motu.</b>
But the Centre opposed the court's suggestion indicating it would amount to allowing the petition. Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium said, <b>"CEC is intended to be a safety valve for purposes of removal of EC. It's one thing to say that in some extreme cases the CEC can take suo motu notice. But to assert suo motu recommending powers will run against the scheme of Parliament."</b>
Reacting to this argument, the Bench said,<b> "This was not the intention of Constitution framers that the CEC will not have powers. The Election Commission has to be insulated, it is an institution headed by a person having same status as that of a Supreme Court judge."</b> Putting full faith in the Commission, the Bench added,<b> "we expect that he (CEC) will act as per the advice according to law".</b>
Elaborating the scheme of Constitution providing for removal of Election Commissioner under Article 324(5), the Bench said, <b>"The Government will have the power. But in that, you have to get the opinion of CEC." It further held the petitioner's right to obtain the recommendation from CEC asking the Centre to file a detailed reply on all the above counts. </b>
The Bench noted that its suggestion does not intend to make out a case against Chawla. In an oblique reference the conservative approach of the Centre towards Chawla, the Bench added, "See it from the Constitution point of view and not X, Y or Z. They'll be there for two or three years." The matter is expected to come up for hearing on Tuesday next.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->