SC gives CEC a free hand to deal with Chawla issue

NEW DELHI: In a major embarrassment to the UPA government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that it is up to chief election commissioner (CEC) to initiate proceedings for the removal of an election commissioner on the basis of any representation made against the latter.

The Centre had argued that the CEC is not empowered to take such action. It’s the business of the executive government, the Centre had contended. A Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice VS Sirpurkar said, “It is left open to the CEC to proceed in accordance with the law on the representation made against the election commissioner. We can not stop anyone from approaching the CEC. How can we prevent them (petitioners who make representation against an EC) from approaching the CEC?” the court asked, turning down the Centre’s plea.

Additional solicitor general Gopal Subramanium, on behalf of the Centre, pleaded with the court not to record such observations in its order while dealing with the petitions against election commissioner Navin Chawla. Senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh and SP MP Chandrabhushan Singh sought permission of the court to withdraw their petitions in view of the stand taken by CEC N Gopalaswami. The court granted the permission with such remarks.

Mr Gopalaswami, in an affidavit filed in the apex court, had said the CEC is empowered to initiate proceedings for removal of the election commissioner on the basis of any representation or petition filed before him by a political party or by any other person or body. He can also suo motu take action based on any information that comes to his notice during the course of his functioning as CEC, Mr Gopalaswami had said in the affidavit.

The apex court decision assumes much significance as it gave a new lease of life to the representation by 205 MPs against Mr Chawla which was made to the then president APJ Abdul Kalam seeking his removal on the ground of alleged misconduct. As a direct sequel to the present development, the field is now wide open for forwarding of a representation against Mr Chawla to the CEC, who can proceed in accordance with the law.

The ASG opposed the CEC’s stand, saying, “The Union of India contests the stand taken by the CEC in his affidavit filed before the court and reiterates that it is the executive government alone which is empowered to initiate proceedings against the election commissioner.” Mr Subramanium picked holes in the CEC’s submission: “The affidavit is silent on the role of the government.”

When the ASG wanted to file additional documents pertaining to the issue, the court said, “This point — whether he (CEC) has the power or not — is not an issue before us and we are not going to adjudicate on the matter.”

Mr Subramanium further contended that all three members of the Election Commission are on par with each other, and even their salaries are made equal by Parliament. “Right from Mr Gill, Mr Lyngdoh, Mr Krishnamurthy and Mr Tandon, that position has been going on,” the ASG said.

“This is a peculiar case where the CEC has filed an affidavit. The petitioners, after withdrawing their petitions, can file a fresh representation before the CEC,” the ASG said while pleading that the government’s stand should be heard on this important issue.

The court, while refusing to accept such a plea, said if the government is aggrieved by the CEC order that could be challenged before the apex court, which is primarily entrusted with deciding constitutional issues. “If the CEC commits mistake, then you can come to the court. We would then decide the matter,” said the Bench.