Mr. L.K. Advani writing in his blog had this to say in reaction to the Chief Election Commissioner’s suo moto recommendation on the removal of controversial election commissioner Navin Chawla.
The current controversy surrounding Election Commissioner Shri Navin Chawla reminds me of a conversation I had had with Benazir Bhutto when she visited Delhi during the NDA regime. She had lunch with me that day and she shared with me a delicious dish of Sindhi curry, which my wife Kamala prepares excellently.
In the post lunch chat we had that day, I posed a question to Benazir: “How is it” I asked her, “that though both India’s as well as Pakistan’s political leadership had imbibed a similar political culture under British rule, India had managed its democracy with remarkable success but in Pakistan democracy had been a total failure.” Benazir’s reply was succinct: “I attribute your country’s success to two factors: firstly, your Army is apolitical; and secondly, your Election Commission is constitutionally independent of the Executive.”
The independence of the Election Commission, an Institution which in the post Peri Shastri era has earned itself the admiration and adulation of the middle class, is at stake here.
In the context of the current controversy about Shri Navin Chawla, it would be educative to compare Art.124 dealing with the Supreme Court, with Art.324 laying down provisions relating to the Election Commission. Art.124 provides that neither the Chief Justice of India nor any other judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his office except by a process of impeachment laid down by Parliament. In case of the Election Commission, however, this kind of protection is provided only to the Chief Election Commissioner, and not to the Election Commissioners. In case of the other Election Commissioners the Constitution says that they “shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.”
Mr. Navin Chawla is a throwback to an earlier era of pliant bureaucrats toeing the Congress line. India cannot afford that slide once again.
Mr. Navin Chawla must go.
Filed under: DesiPundit, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, betrayal of aam admi, jeetega-bharat
He wont go and that has become crystal clear by now. On top of all the other problems we will be going into this election with a biased EC. To expect that he will go is like expecting horses to have wings.
yoss,
can we hv the letter from cec asking for removal of ec.
MSM is already playing their game by questioning the timing???
and wat i know that cec took so long to decide bcoz that EC gave the reply to notice just a month-2 back
Prashanth,
That letter is not available in public domain and thats why Jaitley has demanded govt make it public. it is not a letter but a 90 page report.
Yes as far as timing is concerned except that economic times report and this report which bit confuses the timings, nevertheless justify the cec on timing. The media is conveniently not pointing this out. It is now more than 15 days since it was forwarded to president.
http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=111024
Aclose scrutiny of Article 324 (5) conveys without ambiguity that a recommendation from the CEC is a necessary condition to remove an election commissioner. But it is not quite clear whether a recommendation alone is sufficient. There is no doubt, though, that the CEC has the power to make such recommendations. This has been upheld by the apex court in Dhanoa SSvs Union of India (AIR-1991-SC-1745), and subsequently in T NSeshan vs Union of India (1995-4-SCC-611). The point made in these two landmark cases was that while the office of the chief election commissioner is mandatory and not negotiable, appointment of the election commissioners is discretionary and the president, at any given time, can do without appointing them. But once they are appointed and the commission made into a multi-member body, all business shall be transacted unanimously and in the event of differences, the majority’s opinion shall prevail. Thus, there is nothing in the law that prevents the CEC from recommending the removal of an election commissioner. And Gopalaswami’s recommendation that Chawla be removed cannot be faulted for being unconstitutional. Moreover, the CEC has done this only on the basis of a series of representations against Chawla ever since he was appointed as election commissioner in May 2005.
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Fireballs+of+unrest+in+the+time+of+election&artid=nXn4jNqmrNw=&SectionID=mvKkT3vj5ZA=&MainSectionID=fyV9T2jIa4A=&SectionName=m3GntEw72ik=&SEO=
From the same link above
J C Shah was not a partisan political activist. He was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1970-71) and headed the commission of enquiry that went into the Emergency excesses only in that capacity. The report said: “S/Shri P SBhinder, K SBajwa and Navin Chawla exercised enormous powers during the emergency because they had easy access to the then Prime Minister’s house. 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 the citizens, and in the process rendered themselves unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fairplay and consideration for others. In their relish for power, they completely subverted the normal channels of command and administrative procedures.’’ Imagine Chawla as the Chief Election Commissioner!
Important is Allegation against Chawla is true or not??
Important is to read the report of CEC in detail immediately as any delay means Media will start their dirty game
But the legal controversy over whether Gopalaswami was empowered to propose an EC’s removal without any reference from the government seems misplaced.
For, all that Article 324(5) of the Constitution stipulates is that the EC “shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.” There is no stipulation that the CEC’s recommendation can come only upon a reference made by the government. If anything, the provision is meant to insulate the EC from governmental pressure by placing him, as the Supreme Court put it in a landmark verdict in 1995, “under the protective umbrella of an independent CEC.”
This flies in the face of Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi’s attempt on Saturday to undermine the legality of Gopalaswami’s recommendation to the President to remove Chawla. “There are several intricate issues of law involved including the very jurisdiction of the CEC to exercise such powers on a colleague,” Singhvi said.
Not only is there no question about the CEC’s jurisdiction over his colleague, the government may also be bound by his recommendation, going by SC’s explanation of why the Constitution discriminates between the CEC and EC while providing safeguards to preserve their independence.
According to the Constitution, while the EC can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation, the CEC himself cannot be touched unless he is impeached by Parliament like a Supreme Court judge. In another glaring instance of discrimination, the Constitution ignores the ECs while stipulating that the CEC’s service conditions “shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.”
In its 1991 judgment in S S Dhanoa vs Union of India, SC said that CEC had to be provided a higher degree of protection because he alone was intended by the founding fathers to be “a permanent incumbent” of the Election Commission. It said that “the same type of irremovability” could not be bestowed on the ECs because the Constitution gives the discretion to the government to increase or reduce their number depending on the workload.
“Having insulated the CEC from external political or executive pressure, confidence was reposed in this independent functionary to safeguard the independence of his ECs by enjoining that they cannot be removed except on the recommendation of the CEC,” SC declared in 1991.
This interpretation was broadly upheld in 1995 by a larger bench even as it rejected the attempt of the then CEC T N Seshan to make out that the ECs were either his subordinates or meant only to advise him. Though it otherwise upheld the Narasimha Rao government’s bid to clip Seshan’s wings, the 1995 verdict reiterated, “Since the other ECs were not intended to be permanent appointees they could not be granted the irremovability protection of the CEC, a permanent incumbent, and, therefore, they were placed under the protective umbrella of an independent CEC.”
The implication of these judgments is that the CEC alone can be trusted to take a call on whether a certain EC is being independent enough from the government
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/How_legal_is_CECs_googly_/articleshow/4058532.cms
http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/01/stories/2009020155120800.htm
The Home Minister said he had read the report in a newspaper only.
Here is a case of left hand not knowing what right hand does.
If Gopalaswami believed that Chawla would not be able to discharge his duties without bias, he should have raised the issue with the President earlier and not ahead of elections.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editorial/EDITORIAL_COMMENT__Poor_Timing/articleshow/4060132.cms
Make T.N. Seshan as India’s CEC once again!
Sakthi there is no requirement for that. What we have forgotten is to salute this brave man.
CEC Gopalaswami deserves a salute.
What is required is implementation of BB Tandon’s suggestion
Sample this
(http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/01/stories/2009020159280800.htm )
‘The BJP leader referred to the “flawed manner” in which the CEC and Election Commissioners were appointed, and said B.B. Tandon recommended, just before he relinquished office as CEC, a change in law to ensure appointments of the ECs by a collegium rather than by the political executive. However, Mr. Jaitley did not respond to a question why the National Democratic Alliance government did not change the law.’
Why should jaitley respond to questions when he does not see a proper timeline
TS Krishnamurthy was in in charge from 8 Feb 2004 to 15 May 2005 . By this time NDA govt was a caretaker govt and BB Tandon from 16 May 2005 to 29 June 2006. It is news that NDA govt was in power at this time and Jaitley or Prasad as law ministers sat on it. The suggestion from the then CEC had come in 2006. How could NDA bring in a law.
first, MSM has already started spinning the alleged ‘alleged’ links of GopalSwamy with BJP, as xpected.
second, when everybody talks of timing, don’t they know that the Congi sycophant Naveen had delayed almost half year to submit his reply.
third, BJP shud knock the doors of SC, oh alas there also the congis have a point man in the CJI himself.
Yossarin,
I would like to mail something to you. Is the mail address offstumped@gmail.com
Madurai assembly seat bypoll is just a tip of the iceberg on how a ruling party can win again with tonnes of cash, if there’s a connivance with the EC.
Just look at his wiki. its full of Congi stinks in it.
>> In March 2005, he was presented the Mazzini award by the Government of Italy “in recognition of his efforts to forge a new relationship with Italy and strengthening existing bonds”. 2005 : The Mazzini Award from the Government of Italy. 2005 : Award from the Institution of Directors, New Delhi on the 20th of August 2004.<<
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/video/video.aspx?id=52879
jaitley at his best. Now NDTV comes out on the timing
I that video tring to still question on timing singhvi on backfoot says the cec sat on it for five months
“I received the petition on January 30, 2008. It was immediately succeeded by the Karnataka elections. A lot of work had to be done to prepare the electoral rolls. Meanwhile, Chawla went on leave for one month. He also took time to reply to the show-cause notice. The proceedings took a little over five months, till finally I submitted the report to the President,” Gopalaswami told The Pioneer on Sunday.
I salute his spirit as well.
With his retirement still over three months away, the fact of having to continue work with Chawla does not bother him. “I had a petition before me, and so I had to act. After that, as a colleague, I have no problem working with him unless he should have any problem working with me,” the CEC said matter-of-factly.
http://dailypioneer.com/153891/I-could-not-have-acted-sooner-CEC.html
Even as the main political parties were trading charges, CEC N Gopalaswami defended himself saying: “In my mind, I am right”. Clarifying on the timing of his recommendation, Mr Gopalaswami said that the petition came to him towards the end of January 2008. In February, the Commission was busy with preparations for the Karnataka assembly polls, and Mr Chawla, who was on leave for some time, was given the petition copy in July last and he took six months to respond.
Responding to Mr Chawla’s assertion that the dignity of the Commission was paramount, Mr Gopalaswami said: “I share the same dignity and credibility of the institution. What is credibility, it is only its neutrality. If 179 MPs give a petition, I just can’t throw it in the dustbin. I have to consider and apply my mind.”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/CEC_cited_differences_over_UP_Gujarat_polls/articleshow/4061253.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Ahmedabad/Sir_Noon_over_moon_after_meeting_Modi/articleshow/4058824.cms
Now every time when psecs shout against Modi regarding riots, we should throw this article on their face.
Meanwhile, a senior Congress party leader close to the matter said Gopalaswami’s recommendation to sack Chawla is an “outcome of the government’s reluctance in extending his (Gopalaswami’s) term”. In response, Gopalaswami said: “On the same day (15 January) I have written to the President that after (their) retirement, (the) election commission members should be debarred from taking up any appointment, which has the seal and signature of the President. If I was looking for any post, I wouldn’t have written it.”
Experts are less willing to blame the CEC on the matter just yet. “It is difficult to say whether Gopalaswami’s action was right or wrong without reading the full text of his order to the President. But it is unfortunate that the political parties are politicizing it in such a manner,” said former CEC T.S. Krishnamurthy.
http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/02000621/Govt-may-not-insist-on-Chawla.html?h=B
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Quraishi__law_min_consulted/articleshow/4061351.cms
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1226986
I’m not sure I agree with this agenda – to revive the Ram temple agitation. People have moved on.
But one thing is of interest.
RSS has recognized that 2009 will throw up a factured mandate and the loksabha will not last its term.
They seem to be planning for that eventuality.
May be its just wishful thinking on my part – but if the RSS can back Modi to the hilt and the Sant Sammelan tones it down but puts its muscle behind Modi – oh boy. We could see a whole new era in Indian politics.
One important note here: Mohan Bhagwat – the RSS General secretary who is long rumored to be the next head of RSS has penned a preface for Modi’s book that was translated to Marathi.
I hope the RSS is coming to the realization that without Modi they dont stand a chance.
Mere, Ram-naam will not do. That has lost credibility. They need a visionary leader – who can deliver on all fronts.
May be Bhagwat’s burying the hatchet with Modi is an indication of things moving in the right direction.
It is amazing to watch Mr. Arun Jaitley prove that the recommendation by CEC is binding and how preposterous and counterproductive it is to EXPECT a Government of a ruling party A (Congress in the present case) to ask the Chief Election Commissioner, who works for an independent constitutional body like Election Commission, to make a recommendation to remove the very Election Commissioner who is alleged and proven to be bias and partisan in favor of the same Party A which is ruling the country. Kudos Mr. Jaitley! No wonder may be that’s why the current Prime Minister did not ask the CEC to investigate the written complaints made by the BJP to the Government in 2006 and the latter had no choice but to go to the Supreme Court.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Can_CEC_unilaterally_ask_for_EC_to_be_removed/articleshow/4061252.cms
But, as asked by former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee, did the CEC exceed his constitutional brief in making a suo motu recommendation for removal of an EC?
May be not, for the Constitution does not restrain the CEC to await a presidential reference on a complaint alleging misconduct on the part of an EC to first inquire and then give a recommendation. If experts cite Seshan judgment, then they may be right on the print of the judgment. But, one should not forget that it was an anguished interpretation by the SC given the unsavoury facts and circumstances prevailing at a tense EC under a legally belligerent Seshan.
If complaints to the President, its reference to CEC, the inquiry by him and then the recommendation was the only available procedure for removal of an EC, then a CEC would be rendered a toothless chairperson of an important constitutional body even if he, to cite an example, saw grave misconduct on the part of an EC in the secret chambers of the commission where most important decisions about the health of a democracy is taken.
As such behaviour gets fertilised in the absence of public glare, no one would be competent to complain about it to the President. No reference on it could ever be sent to the CEC. And, the chairperson of the important body would helplessly watch an EC steadily injecting poison into the blood streams of a democracy. For, he could make no unilateral recommendation to the President under Article 324(5) second proviso!
Yossarin,
May I have the e-mail address at which I can mail you something private.
The first letter has suggestions on EC’s appointment and engagements post the completion of their term. In the letter, he has suggested that a separate collegium should choose the Election Commissioners (EC) consisting of the Prime Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, Deputy Chairperson of Rajya Sabha, the Law Minister and leaders of opposition in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Furthermore, the CEC’s letter says that the ECs and CECs should not be allowed to join politicial parties for a period of ten years after the completion of their term. Also, the letter says, there should be bar on joining any office under government or any appointment approved by President, like the Governor of a state.
http://www.timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsId=28330
CEC’s recomendation in in line with the 2006 TIMES NOW report that Navin Chawla had taken funds in a private trust set up by him from the MPLADS funds. This trust continued to recieve funds even two months prior to Navin Chawla becoming the election commissioner.
Last time I checked, India still holds people innocent till proven guilty. The statement CEC gave to President recommending Chawla’s removal (Though its constitutional validity is still under debate) is “privileged information” as per CEC and not available to the public. Should we be making a judgement without complete information, or an attempted defence by the accused for that matter?
Congress has usually kept the Election Commissioners (apart from other Constitutional authorities such as Governors, Vice PResidents and Presidents) under their Control.
http://rightunderthenose.blogspot.com/2008/11/does-cec-mean-congress-election.html
In this case, I am confident the Congress will find a way out to retain Navin CHawla. After all, they cannot afford to let him go at this crucial stage!!!
Off topic, but Yossarin, this should interest you – it pertains to your state!
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1226891
Also, another anti-Modi article (on Rediff, where else?)
http://www.rediff.com/money/2009/jan/31why-they-love-modi.htm
Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami’s recommendation to the President, on January 16, 2009, for the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla, came after Chawla tried, for several months, to evade responding to allegations of partisanship. A series of communications to the President was made after consultation with a well-known former Chief Justice of India and, in fact, includes two other recommendations to strengthen the institution of the CEC.
Gopalaswami not only recommended removing Chawla, but in two additional letters to the President also suggested (a) the implementation of a recommendation by his predecessor B B Tandon that as in the case of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, the collegium set up for the appointment of the CEC include the Leader of Opposition; and (b) the barring of EC members for 10 years from taking part in any elections, or from joining any political party, or from accepting any office including that of the Governor.
Obviously, Gopalaswami would not gain personally from any of his recommendations.
With regard to the removal of Chawla, a petition came from the BJP in January 31, 2008 — a year ago. Sources close to the CEC reveal that Gopalaswami did not wish to act on the matter as in February 2008, the highly contentious issue of the Karnataka Assembly polls, whose deadline was May 2008, came up. The Congress wished to defer the polls as it was afraid that the BJP would gain heavily (in fact, the BJP did eventually form a stable government).
Chawla, in opposition to the other two members of the Commission, argued for deferment till a fresh delimitation took place.
The CEC decided not to ask Chawla to respond to the petition as it might be construed as a pressure tactic to have the Karnataka Assembly polls as per schedule; he decided to wait till May.
Soon after the Karnataka polls were over, however, Chawla went on a month’s leave. He was apparently distressed as his daughter was undergoing divorce. He returned only in July and, when he did, Gopalaswami asked him to respond to the BJP’s petition.
Yet Chawla did not and, every 15 days, the CEC religiously reminded him to do so. There were eight such reminders.
Finally on December 10, 2008, Chawla responded. It took the CEC a month to examine his response, marshal the facts and prepare his recommendation as he did not wish to entrust such a sensitive matter to anyone. But he had his recommendation examined by the former Chief Justice before it was submitted to the President.
The recommendation not only includes the BJP’s charges about a trust run by Chawla’s spouse to which Congress MPs had donated from their Local Area Development funds, but it also appends minutes from EC meetings in which Chawla’s blatant partisanship clearly comes through. One is the Karnataka polls in which Chawla could not sway matters; the other regards a petition seeking the disqualification of Sonia Gandhi as MP for accepting an honorary title from the Belgian monarchy.
In the second case, Chawla wanted to involve the Ministry of External Affairs, to which the other two EC members strongly objected. Eventually, a senior MEA official informally made the Congress case to the CEC.
Gopalaswami, say sources close to him, intends to see the matter to its legal conclusion. Sources say it is unfair to allege, as several have done, that he has done it on the eve of elections merely to embarrass the political executive
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Chawla+to+blame+for+delayed+response,+not+CEC&artid=r4smOiEjd00=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&MainSectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&SEO=Chawla,+Gopalaswamy,+CEC,+EC&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=
Ulema Council Chairman Maulana Amir Rashadi says that the Muslims have lost faith in the UPA. Also admires Karkare and plans to invite Mrs. Karkare to fight Lok Sabha polls from Azamgarh!
http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/02-muslims-have-lost-faith-in-upa.htm
What next?
Gopalswami is a man of great integrity ….With a sycophant President,a spineless EC who in all probability will be the next CEC and a servile CJI, with the Chief Sucker Manmohini and cowardly cabinet, the Dynasty is in full control of the Indian State and its institutions.Addedw ith a prostarting intellegentsai and a flag-bearing anti-national media, the plot is ripe eneough for Raul Vinci and Antonia Maino to call this an emergency situation akin to 1975 and play foul with India’s Democratic distinction.I have doubts now whether 2009 general elections could be postponed or stage-managed with this hand-in-glove chawla chamcha.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1874835,00.html
This might just put an end to Jihad. Remember oil (and our addiction to it) is at the heart of the Arab worlds influence in the world.
Without it (and if oil prices dip below $10) they will have to engage the world on modern terms – much like the UAE has had to over the past 5-10 years.
Its heartening to know that India has actually taken the lead with Jatropha.
Infact Indian army feeds a large part of its fleet with Jatropha oil as fuel.
Well now the centre has clearly said next CEC will be Chawla. This is the ripe opportunity for congress to hold elections with chawla heading EC.
They sure are a lucky bunch no doubt . Amazing that they have the media, intellectuals, EC on their side now. At no cost will be elections be postponed now . I am sure every congressman is now already thinking of being in power for another 5 years. Shame on every Indian who will vote for them.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/02navin-chawla-will-be-next-cec-says-government.htm
“Union Law Minister H Bharadwaj on Monday slammed Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami for ‘overstepping his powers’ by recommending the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla to President Pratibha Patil [Images].
“The CEC overstepped his powers. His allegations are unfortunate. He cannot behave like a political boss,” Bharadwaj told mediapersons in New Delhi [Images] on Monday. “
Being transparent, what is that? Congress is nothing but a bunch of goons running wild on nasha of power. Now as per PMO the assets of ministers, kin exempt are from RTI.
“The CEC overstepped his powers. His allegations are unfortunate. He cannot behave like a political boss,” Bharadwaj told mediapersons in New Delhi
YES only CONGRESS has got RIGHT to make Former CEC as Political Boss like they did for M.SGill???
or for that matter make Former Chief Justice of INdia “Ranganath Mishra” as Rajya Sabha MP.
Are individuals bigger than the Republic?
http://dailypioneer.com/153874/Are-individuals-bigger-than-the-Republic.html
The demise of Venkatraman gave the Government the escape route to end the celebrations before the scheduled time. It may have solved the issue of who sits next to the President during the Beating of Retreat but have we become so politically mean to shelve traditions in order to safeguard interests?
Damning report by the CEC!!!
http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/02chawlas-loo-breaks-led-to-congress-phone-calls-cec.htm
As one of the commentators has suggested on the Rediff site, the BJP should say that it would not be part of the GEneral Elections if it is held under the gaze of Navin Chawla as CEC! That would put all political parties under pressure!
Thats a good suggestion I thought – a masterstroke, in fact! What do you guys feel?
Otherwise, it will just another cry in the dark and finally Congress will have its way at the end of the day. Only a drastic measure like the one suggested above can save the day for the BJP. Otherwise it will be entering a losing battle. By taking that bold move, they would have won a moral victory. If the Congress still goes ahead with the Elections, they would have lost all credibility. And if Navin Chawla is removed after the BJP threat, the BJP would have won a major psychological battle!
Question is does CEC has right to Recomend the Removal of EC for misconduct?
YES
So y these doormat lawyer/media questioning integrity of CEC…
CEC has the RIGHT to recommend…..but debatable is if Govt is bound or not??
Now let Govt decide if they are going to accept the recommondation of CEC on Merit basis.
lET now people knows why the govt has taken that decsion
Chawla’s loo breaks led to Congress phone calls: CEC
http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/02chawlas-loo-breaks-led-to-congress-phone-calls-cec.htm
Election Commissioner Navin Chawla’s excuses and frequent visits to the washroom whenever crucial decisions were taken by the full bench of the Election Commission, is among the instances cited by the Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami [Images] in his letter to the President recommending the former’s removal.
In the report to the President, the CEC notes that whenever the full bench meeting was seized of an issue, Chawla will make an excuse of going to the washroom. And soon thereafter, invariably, the CEC would get phone calls from top Congress functionaries even as the meeting was in progress. This amounted to interference in the functioning of the Election Commission, the CEC felt.
In his report, Gopalaswami also elaborated on the visit of the prime minister’s Principal Secretary T K A Nair to Nirvachan Sadan, which houses the Election Commission of India in New Delhi [Images], to enquire about the ‘notice’ being sent to Congress president Sonia Gandhi [Images] on her receiving an award from Belgium.
Gopalaswami felt that inside deliberations and details of the meetings were invariably being conveyed to a political party.
The CEC has cited 12 instances to conclude that Chawla has not remained impartial in his role as Election Commissioner.
The CEC’s letter to the President recommending Chawla’s removal is just two pages long, and he has dealt with 12 specific cases of partisanship in another 24 pages and annexed more than 800 pages of the Election Commission minutes, internal correspondence, etc in support of the case he has built up against his colleague.
Sources said Gopalaswami also personally apprised the President, the Cabinet Secretary and the PM’s principal secretary about Chawla’s misconduct with the staff to assert that he is not fit to continue in the Election Commission.
The CEC has conveyed to top government functionaries the complaints of two deputy election commissioners in this regard. Rajashri Bhattacharya, a 1979 batch IAS officer of the Andhra cadre, had even complained to the Cabinet Secretary that Chawla had abused him and threatened to get him arrested. Bhattacharya has since moved to the Planning Commission. R Balasubramanian, an Orissa cadre IAS officer, is the other deputy election commissioner who complained to the CEC in writing against Chawla.
The CEC also received a complaint that Chawla went out of his way to help a pandal owner during the recent Delhi assembly elections by calling up electoral officers to hire material from him.
Though Gopalaswami has not identified the Congress leaders prompted by Chawla to call up and interfere in the Election Commission’s functioning in his report to the President, he has named T K A Nair as having visited him.
Gopalaswami says Nair tried to scuttle the notice against the Congress president, pleading that the prime minister has already examined the matter and found that there was no case against Sonia Gandhi. After five months of deliberations, the Election Commission decided to serve notice on Sonia Gandhi. She replied but the Election Commission is not able to firm up its views since Chawla is dragging his feet in submitting his comments, the CEC’s report says.
The CEC’s report says irrespective of whether Chawla consents to a decision or finds himself singled out by a majority of Gopalaswami and S Y Quraishi, the other Election Commissioner, he appears to be in the habit of conveying all the minutes of their internal meetings to the Congress leadership.
The report mentions the CEC getting a phone call from a top Congress functionary when the Election Commission was debating the possible dates for the Gujarat assembly elections and holding them in three phases as the home ministry was reluctant to provide sufficient central forces to complete it in two phases.
Sources stated that the Congress functionary whom the CEC does not name is none else but Ahmed Patel, Sonia Gandhi’s political secretary, who talked to him in Gujarati, but this could not be confirmed. Gopalaswami, who is a Gujarat cadre IAS officer and speaks Gujarati fluently, countered as to how he learnt about the details when the EC’s deliberations were still in progress.
Sources said Ahmed Patel reportedly wriggled out, stating that he got it from a source and assured sufficient central forces to complete the elections in two phases. And in no time the home ministry informed the CEC that central forces can be provided to conduct the polls in two phases and so the elections were held in two phases.
In another instance, Chawla found himself in a minority on holding the Himachal Pradesh [Images] assembly elections ahead of the completion of the five-year term of the present House. Even before the minutes were drawn up, the CEC got a phone call from then chief minister Veerbhadra Singh to defer announcement of the elections. Another senior Congress functionary wanted to meet the EC’s full bench to plead against the elections three months ahead of the House term.
Sources identified this functionary as R K Dhawan, a senior Congress Working Committee member, who is very close to the Gandhi family. Again, this could not be confirmed.
Other instances cited by the CEC for removing Chawla include those related to the Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh [Images] assembly elections, Bhagalpur by-election, and the controversial BJP CD case during the Uttar Pradesh elections.
Navin Chawla will not go.The Law Minister has already come to his rescue.Navin Chawla”s appointment in the first place was part of a plan and the time is just round the corner to complete the last leg of that plan.
They will not let Navin Chawla go.
The Navin Chawla episode is getting uglier by every passing minute. Sooner he goes is better for the Congress party whose image is getting tarnished by their shameless support to Chawla.The President should not have reffered the matter to the Government.He should be removed from the office before it is too late and before the issue becomes a major political issue.Almost every opinion posted by so many persons is unanimous that Chawla must go.
Anil Gupta Meerut
Congress is in a tight spot!
If they accept CEC recommendation and let Navin Chawla go, they are indirectly admitting that they had played foul by nominating him as the EC in the first place and that they had ugly plans during the General Elections.
If they reject CEC recommendation and support Navin Chawla, they will lose credibility.
Their only hope is to tarnish the reputation of the CEC and assign hidden motives for his “timing” of the report etc.
My guess is they will go with the second choice:
a) One reason is that the Congress is shameless, they will create a spin out of this with the help of their media partners and convince everyone that it is the BJP which has an agenda to oust Chawla and is not respecting Constitutional authorities.
b) The other and the main reason is that, as B K Chowla puts it, the game plan of installing NAvin Chawla in the EC was to make sure that rules are tweaked in favour of the Congress. Whats the point in exiitng at the time of the climax?
Govt trying to avoid answer CEC’s charges against Chawla: BJP
http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=e1c08060-9328-4e77-bd42-87811eb28c9d&CATEGORYNAME=NATL
The government needs to answer the twelve points of biased conduct, which is in the public domain. They are trying to avoid a reply on the issue by debating on the procedural details,” party spokesperson Ravi Shanker Prasad told reporters here today.
The solution to all these problems are let the pseudo congress ledader Johnia gandhi & her so called dynasty blood family, and her sympathisers go away from politics, It will be a great service by her for the future of Bharath, without taking birth here, without knowing any heck about Bharath, the History of Bharath, how can one give the key to rule India to a Italian maid??? really really surprised by the stupidness of our majority Bharathias. Foolish.
BJP not taking part in the elections if they are held under the auspices of Navin Chawla as suggested by 40 above will be just playing into the hands of Kkangress who want to avoid facing the BJP somehow.
The whole idea behind supporting Navin Chawla may be because Kkangress wants to disqualify BJP somehow or the other (by citing their rooting for Hindu causes ,for instance)
SRI.NAVIN CHAWLA MUST GO.NOT ONLY ELECTION COMMISSIONERS ALSO JUDGES ALSO SHOULD NOT HAVE LINKS WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTYS .AFTER RETIREMENT THEY CAN SUPPORT ANY POL.PARTY OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.SO GOVT.SHOULD THINK IT POSITIVELY AND NOT TO MAKE IT POLITICAL ISSUE.DO NOT TRY TO LOSE IMAGE OF ELECTION COMMISSION .MAINLY CONGRESS SHOULD TAKE A RIGHT DECISION.
If one family rules India for 50 years out of 62 years, who calls it a democracy ????
http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2009/01/todays-india-is-not-democracy-it-is.html
Nation needs Gopalaswami not Chawla —excellent article by B.R.Haran
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=8143&SKIN=B
>>One reason is that the Congress is shameless, they will create a spin out of this with the help of their media partners
Spot on. Expect major Congress-led propaganda offensives on NDTV and CNNIBN. I’ve stopped watching the former, and signs of a brewing campaign on the latter.
[...] the Navin Chawla case will head to the courts and arguments will be made on the Constitutional merits of the CEC’s [...]
I am flabbergasted by some comments by few people who have presumed Chawla would go. No way in Hell sirs….even if hell freezes over he wont go and congress wont let it happen. This is a god sent opportunity for them to win the 2009 polls and only a fool will let this go.
I am even more sure now that the people of India deserve congress since we know only to comment here and express our outrage and assume things will be honky dory after that. We can express outrage for years sitting here and blabbering but neither will chawla go nor congress kick him out and hence day by day its only a miracle which will help BJP come to power.
We all will keep on cribbing even after 2009 elections and unless someone like Rajesh who went ahead and organised a meeting does something nothing will happen. I wish I was in Mumbai and was part of that meeting.
Chawla will not go. Is he a man of any honour to resign ? So 2009 elctions are as good as signed, sealed and delivered to Congress. Irrepective of Congress and Chawla shenanigans, BJP must at least educate the public of about that fount of evil, called Congress Party. BJP has absolutely nothing to lose. Let it go hammer and tongs at Congress. Absolutely no holds barred. Let the anti-hindu media call them whatever. You objective is to expose BJP, vote or no vote.
It’s amazing how CNN-IBN and friends are defending Chawla and Kangress with a straight face
Congress is again playing politics with ECI to remain in politics…….
People of India should resoundingly defeat this Cancer called “Congress”
[...] intentions and damaging his credibility to ask him how dare he have the temerity to recommend the removal of Navin Chawla. That is why the Congress Party, Navin Chawla and their minions in the media like N. Ram stand [...]
[...] also welcomed the CEC’s recommendations that to ensure the process of appointment of the members of the ECI more broad-based and [...]
What a bunch of noobs…I am a 10th grader and I honestly think by the time I am 18 India is going to be in the top in the list of the world’s top stupid countries.
[...] today carried extracts from the 93 page note by Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami against Navin Chawla. Offstumped has relevant extracts. UP ASSEMBLY POLLS (2007): The CEC alleges Chawla tried to get [...]
Hi,
I was reading ur blog posts and found some of them to be very good.. u write well.. Why don’t you popularize it more.. ur posts on ur blog ‘offstumped’ took my particular attention as some of them are interesting topics of mine too;
BTW I help out some ex-IIMA guys who with another batch mate run http://www.rambhai.com where you can post links to your most loved blog-posts. Rambhai was the chaiwala at IIMA and it is a site where users can themselves share links to blog posts etc and other can find and vote on them. The best make it to the homepage!
This way you can reach out to rambhai readers some of whom could become your ardent fans.. who knows..
Cheers,
Ray