Author: A Surya Prakash
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 10, 2009
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/155464/Chawla-should-step-down.html
Some sections of the chatterati, which are
obviously not well-groomed in the democratic tradition, have been trying relentlessly
over the past week to whip up public sentiment against Chief Election Commissioner
N Gopalaswami for recommending the removal of his colleague, Mr Navin Chawla,
for his avowed pro-Congress leaning.
The arguments advanced by Mr Chawla's supporters
centre around two points: The CEC has overreached himself in recommending
the removal of an Election Commissioner; and, second, it is wholly inappropriate
of Mr Gopalaswami to make the recommendation just before the general election.
Members of this group, however, make no mention of the allegations against
Mr Chawla. Their deafening silence in regard to the controversial Election
Commissioner's appalling curriculum vitae tells its own story about the democratic
upbringing of his promoters. However, this is an aspect on which we need to
turn the spotlight if we are genuinely committed to democracy and political
plurality.
Those who advance the argument that the CEC
is not constitutionally equipped to sit in judgement over his colleague are
obviously under the spell of a modern day legal luminary called HR Bhardwaj.
We must appeal to them to turn their attention instead to the opinion given
by a lawyer who rose from humbler circumstances like BR Ambedkar.
Introducing Article 289 (now Article 324)
in the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar took pains to explain why the CEC could
be removed only through the process of impeachment, but an Election Commissioner
could be removed on the recommendation of the CEC. Ambedkar said the idea
was to have a centralised Election Commission and "to have permanently
in office one man called the Chief Election Commissioner". Thereafter,
it would be up to the President to appoint additional Election Commissioners
and Regional Election Commissioners.
As regards conditions of service, it was decided
to give the CEC the same status as a judge of the Supreme Court. In other
words, he cannot be removed by the executive through a mere fiat. "We,
of course, do not propose to give the same status to the other members of
the Commission. We have left the matter to the President as to the circumstances
under which he would deem fit to remove any other member of the Election Commission,
subject to one condition that the Chief Election Commissioner must recommend
that the removal is just and proper," Ambedkar said.
Later, while responding to the debate on this
Article, Ambedkar reiterated that while the President would have the power
to remove an Election Commissioner, this power "is subject to a very
important limitation", namely that "the President can only act on
the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner". He told the Constituent
Assembly that with this safeguard, the provisions for the removal of an Election
Commissioner "are adequate and nothing more is necessary for that purpose".
The Constitution-makers saw the CEC as embodying
the independence of the Election Commission and placed him above the other
Commissioners. Therefore, the conduct of Mr Gopalaswami is constitutional
and strictly within the scheme envisaged by Ambedkar. Any argument to the
contrary only smacks of constitutional illiteracy or, worse, an attempt to
subvert the Constitution to suit the petty interests of a political party
and an individual like Mr Chawla.
The second argument against the CEC's recommendation
pertains to its timing. On July 21, 2008, the CEC sought Mr Chawla's comments
on the BJP's petition. Mr Chawla sent his reply on December 10, 2008. The
CEC's recommendation to the President is dated January 16, 2009. Pray, how
could the CEC have taken a decision earlier when Mr Chawla sent his reply
only last December? Therefore, if there is some political game in the timing,
should not the finger point in the direction of Mr Chawla?
Finally, a word about the fascist tendencies
displayed by Mr Chawla during the infamous 19-month Emergency imposed by Mrs
Indira Gandhi during 1975-77. A reading of the Shah Commission's well-documented
report provides us a frightening panorama of the diabolical goings-on during
those months of dictatorship. It also gives us a glimpse of Mr Chawla's democratic
credentials.
The Shah Commission found that though Mr Chawla,
a Sanjay Gandhi crony, was Secretary to the Lt Governor, he took undue interest
in Tihar Jail and interfered in its administration. Mr Batra, the superintendent
of the jail, told the Commission that when he informed the Government about
the inadequacy of cells to house so many political prisoners, Mr Chawla asked
him to "bake them" in cells with asbestos roofs. The Commission
was also informed that on another occasion Mr Chawla suggested that certain
"troublesome prisoners should be kept with the lunatics".
This was not all. The Shah Commission found
evidence of Mr Chawla's involvement in the interrogation of opponents of the
Emergency regime. He came up with the idea of a special sub-committee "to
interrogate certain persons who had tendered apology for their past political
activities". This sub-committee included a psychiatrist. The Commission
also found clinching evidence of him ordering arrests without valid grounds
and threatening non-complying district magistrates with arrest.
All this convinced the Shah Commission that
Mr Chawla had become a law unto himself. The Commission's report said: "It
is clear on the evidence that S/Shri PS Bhinder, KS Bajwa and Navin Chawla
exercised enormous powers during the Emergency because they had easy access
to the then Prime Minister's house. Having acquired that power, they used
it without considering whether the exercise was moral or immoral, legal or
illegal."
The Shah Commission was of the opinion that
"though the involvement of these officers may vary slightly in degree,
their approach to the problems of the period relating to the citizens was
authoritarian and callous. They grossly misused their position and abused
their powers in cynical disregard of the welfare of citizens and in the process
rendered themselves unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude
of fair play and consideration for others. In their relish for power they
completely subverted the normal channels of command and administrative procedure".
In its concluding remarks, the Commission said, "Tyrants sprouted at
all levels overnight - tyrants whose claim to authority was largely based
on their proximity to power."
Therefore, while the Congress tries to deflect
the debate onto the CEC, we need to go back to the basics and ask whether
a person like Mr Chawla, who has been described as a "tyrant" and
declared "unfit" for any public office, should have been appointed
an Election Commissioner in the first place. It is not too late. The President
must act on the advice of the CEC and remove Mr Chawla.
