Elections are the foundation of a democracy. Election commission entrusted with the responsibility to hold free and fair elections plays a pivotal role in smooth power transfer. It is an institution which is expected to work in absolutely unbiased manner.
For the first time in India's modern day history, the Chief Election Commissioner (Gopalaswami) has recommended sacking of one of the Election Commissioner (Chawla).
Is he right morally and constitutionally to raise the whistle at a time when the country is at the threshold of general elections?
To find an answer, let us look at conduct of Mr.Chawla in the past.
1. Let us go back to the days of Emergency, this man was deemed unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others by Justice Shah Commission thirty years back, in 1979. Why? This man was secretart to the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi and abused his position in cynical disregard of welfare of citizens at the best of oppressing political party.
2. He is the beneficiary of the bonties received by her highness madam's party. His family run trust was also allotted six acres of land from the Congress government in Rajasthan in Ashok Gehlot rule. Donations received by his trust were predominantly from madam's own party namely A A Khan, R P Goenka, Ambika Soni, Karan Singh and A R Kidwai.
Recenty, 204 MPs of the Opposition NDA applied to the President of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, asking for Chawla’s removal from the Commission.
ooking at Mr.Chawla's past were these people wrong? Wouldn't anybody have done the same?
Is CEC (Gopalaswami) morally wrong ? Certainly Not. Well, the question rather needs to be asked is that why was this man made an Election Commissioner in the first place by the ruling party. Does the Madam thinks that she can appoint puppets at each and every constitutional positions of India, be it the post of PM, President and Election Commissioner. This calls for a serious re-look at appointment of CEC and ECs, in the spirit of Constituent Assembly debate and impartial conduct and functioning of EC.
Why now? Does it takes time to collect evidences, observe certain behavioural patterns, deliberate upon them and finally formulate an opinion about a person with whom you work. Gopalaswami isn't Chawala, he couldn't have acted in Chawala's sycophantic style of working. In May 2006, the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha moved the Supreme Court for Chawla’s removal. In that case, CEC Gopalaswami filed an affidavit affirming that he had the authority to remove any member of the Election Commission for good reasons. This led to the withdrawal of the petition. CEC at that time probably would have wanted to give himself more time to understand his collegue better.
Now, lets come to the question of constitutional authority. In case of the removal of Election Commissioners the Constitution says that they "shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.". Rule seems quite simple and unambiguous. But its not always so when you are one of the beneficiaries. So, CEC is constitutionally correct in recommending the removal of EC provided he has substantial evidence to prove his case (and it seems that he has done his homework by preparing a 800 page report and sending to the President).
Kudos to CEC (Gopalaswami) for upholding the honour and prestige of Indian Democracy. Chawala must go, he is morally and constitutionally unfit to become CEC. Any futher efforts to push his candidature towards CECship will adversely affect Congress's plan to return to power. If better sense prevails upon them, its time that they throw him away.
0 comments:
Post a Comment