CEC defends 'partisanship' charges against Chawla

2 Feb 2009,

NEW DELHI: Chief election commissioner N Gopalaswami has strongly rebutted the barrage of criticism on the timing of

his recommendation for the removal of election commissioner Navin Chawla for "partisanship", just ahead of Lok Sabha

elections.

Talking to TOI, the CEC asserted that if the recommendation for Chawla's removal came so close to the forthcoming

general elections, it was because the latter had given his reply to the charges only on December 10.

"The timing was determined by circumstances beyond my control," Gopalaswami said, adding that he gave his report to the

President on January 16, little over a month after he had received Chawla's response.

The criticism from legal experts, in most cases, focused on the sheer timing of his recommendation, and was shared even

by those who felt that he had the competence to recommend Chawla's removal.

Detailing the sequence of events leading to the recommendation and the political battle it has triggered, Gopalaswami

explained why it took him six months to seek Chawla's comments on BJP's petition against the latter. Though BJP had filed

its petition to him on January 30, 2008, he wrote to Chawla only on July 21.

According to the CEC, he delayed writing to Chawla because of the differences he had developed with the latter over the

timing of the Karnataka elections, which ended in May.

"I put the petition on hold till the Karnataka election was over, lest it be misunderstood," Gopalaswami said. There was

further delay as Chawla proceeded on leave for a month.

The CEC further said that rather than responding to the charges framed by him on the basis of BJP's petition and other

information in his knowledge, Chawla raised preliminary objections on September 12, saying that he was seeking the law

ministry's opinion on whether the CEC had the power to make a suo motu inquiry against an election commissioner.

Gopalaswami replied on September 17, saying he had the power to take cognizance of BJP's petition even without a

reference from the government, but the assertion did not settle the matter.

On November 7, the law ministry took the view that Gopalaswami could not proceed with the inquiry as any

recommendation for the removal of an election commissioner under Article 324(5), in its opinion, could be given only on a

reference from the government.

Still, it took, according to the CEC, several reminders for Chawla to finally give his reply on December 10. Having

complied with the requirement of due process, Gopalaswami sent his report, an event without precedent, to the President

on January 12.

On the controversy over whether he had the power to make a suo motu recommendation against an EC, Gopalaswami

pointed out that at least Chawla, in his written arguments before the Supreme Court on a petition filed by BJP leader

Jaswant Singh, had conceded that a CEC indeed had the competence.

According to Gopalaswami, Chawla's written arguments, settled by his senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, said, "The CEC,

knowing from his personal knowledge that an EC is unfit to hold that office, must be thoroughly incompetent or corrupt

himself if he takes no action at all."

That was not all. Reacting to the previous CEC's stand that he could not take action on BJP's earlier petition as it had not

been forwarded to him by the President, Chawla's written arguments before SC said, "The assertion of the CEC that he

could not have taken action unless his comments were called for by the President is wholly untenable."