Author: Pioneer News Service
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 1, 2007.
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.
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."
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.
