CEC vs EC
With less than one hundred days to go for the general elections in India, people who were expecting the usual salvos from the political leaders from one another were quite a bit taken aback when it came from Nirvachan Sadan - the home of Election Commission of India. The Chief Election Commissioner of India N. Gopalaswami wrote to President Pratibha Patil with a recommendation that Navin Chawla, Gopalaswami's colleague at the Election Commission be removed from the post of Election Commissioner, accusing him of bias. Gopalaswami's letter was of 93 pages, detailing the reasons for his recommendation along with 500+ pages of annexure. Gopalaswami's recommendation, coming as it does on the eve of general elections, has plunged the Election Commission in to a crisis, and not just that, it’s also is a litmus test for the government.
The current issue between Gopalaswami and Navin Chawla has its origins beginning more than a year ago. In January 2008, Bharatiya Janata Party submitted a memo against EC Navin Chawla to the CEC Gopalaswami. Their allegation was that Navin Chawla is biased towards the ruling Congress party and also that the Election Commissioner has obtained bribes from the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (shortly known as MPLADS) funds from at least five Congress MPs (A.A. Khan, R.P. Goenka, Ambika Soni, Dr Karan Singh and A.R. Kidwai) for a trust (Lala Chamanlal Education Trust) that Navin Chawla ran along with his wife Rupika Chawla. The same trust, which is based in Jaipur was also given land of about six acres by the Government of Rajasthan, then headed by a Congress man Ashok Gehlot (Incidentally, Congress has just returned to power in Rajasthan under the same Ashok Gehlot). Based on the above allegations, the main opposition party petitioned the Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami to remove Election Commissioner Navin Chawla.
When the above memo was submitted, preparations for the Karnataka Assembly elections were already underway. Gopalaswami, after consulting the legal experts on the matter, waited for the Assembly elections to get over and sends a notice to Navin Chawla, along with BJP's memo seeking his answer against the allegations. By this time, Navin Chawla went on a month long leave. As many as eight reminders later, Navin Chawla replied back stating that he is seeking legal help about the matter and writes to the Law Ministry. Finally, on 10th December 2008, Navin Chawla replied with a 150 page letter denying BJP's allegations.
Little over a month later, the CEC writes to the President recommending Chawla's removal. Gopalaswami has detailed 12 specific cases of partisanship and annexed several hundred pages of the Election Commission minutes, internal correspondence, etc in support of the case he has built up against his colleague. Gopalaswami notes that whenever the full bench of the Election Commission was seized of an issue, Chawla will make an excuse of going to the bathroom.
Soon after, invariably, the CEC got phone calls from top Congress functionaries even as the meeting was in progress. The CEC in no uncertain terms has expressed that inside deliberations and details of the meetings were invariably being conveyed to Congress party.
From what is available in the public domain so far, there is no legally tenable evidence to prove that Chawla talked to the Congress leaders and leaked the EC's decisions, but there are numerous cases of circumstantial evidence to prove that Chawla was all the time in touch with Congress leaders.
President Pratibha Patil is understood to have forwarded the CEC's recommendations to the Central Government, which ought to have taken a decision by now. The issue is not just about one bureaucrat acusing the other. It assumes urgency due to the fact that N. Gopalaswami retires as CEC on April 20, 2009. The person who is tipped to succeed him is none other than Navin Chawla. Another reason for the urgent disposal of this matter is because the country will be in the midst of the electoral process when the change of baton takes place at Nirvachan Sadan. Thus the unprecedented step by Gopalaswami just a few weeks before his retirement has raked up a huge political controversy and can lead to a crisis of confidence in the Election Commission especially if Chawla is appointed by the government to the top Constitutional post without addressing the issues raised by the CEC.
When the media got hold of the CEC's recommendation to the President, quite expectedly it opened a can of worms. Most of the political parties, barring the Opposition BJP, blamed Gopalaswami for having precipitated a crisis at the eleventh hour. The fact of the matter was that Chawla was responsible for the inordinate delay by the CEC to make his recommendation. While the reaction of the political parties are very much on the expected lines, surprisingly, most in the mainstream media has chosen to attack the CEC over the timing of the recommendation, notwithstanding the fact that CEC's unprecedented action has only strengthened the democracy. Legal experts and former attorney generals are divided on whether Article 324(5) of the Constitution can be used suo moto by the CEC Gopalaswami.
While N. Gopalaswami's career has remained spotless so far, it will be interesting to look at the history of Navin Chawla. An IAS officer of 1969 batch, Navin Chawla started his career as a Sub-Divisional magistrate in Delhi. At the early stages of his career, Chawla had his loyalty towards the first family of Congress that his actions found detailed mention in the report of Shah Commission, which was formed to probe the excesses committed during the Emergency (1975-77). As a low-ranking bureaucrat during the Emergency (Navin Chawla was private secretary to the lieutenant governor of Delhi, Kishan Chand) Chawla, along with his cohorts in the police at the time, 'exercised enormous powers during the emergency because they had easy access to the then prime minister Indira Gandhi'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 fair play and consideration for others. The Shah Commission noted that in their relish for power, they completely subverted the normal channels of command and administrative procedures.
Another committee headed by L.P.Singh, that was set up to advise follow-up action on the Shah Committee, opined that Chawla unfit to hold any public office and that he deserved to be summarily dismissed from service without any further inquiry or proceedings. Had it not been for the bureaucratic delays and the subsequent fall of the Janata Party government led by Charan Singh, Navin Chawla would not have been an national embarassment that he is now. Fall of Charan Singh's government and the subsequent return of Indira Gandhi to power resulted in those indicted by Shah Commission including Navin Chawla getting restored to plump positions in the corridors of power.
The Election Commission was envisaged by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution as an independent body and hence cannot and should not be seen to serve any political party. It is vital that this sensitive constitutional body is occupied by person of integrity, impartiality and independence. The Election Commission's claim to neutrality and objectivity should not be allowed to be marred by one controversial bureaucrat. Appointing a person with Navin Chawla's credentials itself is a brazen defiance of norms of accountability in public life. This is very much apart from the allegations related to Chawla's trust receiving land from Rajasthan Government and funds from the MPLADS, as mentioned earlier in this post. At the time of writing, Congress has been vehemently opposing CEC Gopalaswami's recommendation and has been insisting that Navin Chawla would take over as CEC after April 20, 2009.
It is not just the Congress that tries to place its favourite men at sensitive positions. Back in February 2004, just before the eve of the last general elections, when J.M. Lyngdoh retired as CEC, Atal Behari Vajpayee's NDA government was not keen on elevating the senior-most Commissioner, T.S. Krishnamurthy. It had reportedly zeroed in on a former Cabinet Secretary, T.R. Prasad, as the CEC. The government is not duty bound to elevate the senior-most Commissioner as the chief. However, the convention was clear and in favour of T.S. Krishnamurthy. It was only the threat of resignation by the two Commissioners, Krishnamurthy and B.B. Tandon (who later became the CEC upon Krishnamurthy's retirement and who handed over the baton to the incumbent Gopalaswami), that dissuaded the Vajpayee government from taking the precipitous step.
Coming back to the current crisis, moral wisdom demands that Government remove Navin Chawla at once, even if it appears to favour the opposition. But, how practical is it to expect this bit of justice from a party that installed a disgraced person at the Rashtrapathi Bhavan and a puppet at 7 Race Course Road, New Delhi.
The current issue between Gopalaswami and Navin Chawla has its origins beginning more than a year ago. In January 2008, Bharatiya Janata Party submitted a memo against EC Navin Chawla to the CEC Gopalaswami. Their allegation was that Navin Chawla is biased towards the ruling Congress party and also that the Election Commissioner has obtained bribes from the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (shortly known as MPLADS) funds from at least five Congress MPs (A.A. Khan, R.P. Goenka, Ambika Soni, Dr Karan Singh and A.R. Kidwai) for a trust (Lala Chamanlal Education Trust) that Navin Chawla ran along with his wife Rupika Chawla. The same trust, which is based in Jaipur was also given land of about six acres by the Government of Rajasthan, then headed by a Congress man Ashok Gehlot (Incidentally, Congress has just returned to power in Rajasthan under the same Ashok Gehlot). Based on the above allegations, the main opposition party petitioned the Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami to remove Election Commissioner Navin Chawla.
When the above memo was submitted, preparations for the Karnataka Assembly elections were already underway. Gopalaswami, after consulting the legal experts on the matter, waited for the Assembly elections to get over and sends a notice to Navin Chawla, along with BJP's memo seeking his answer against the allegations. By this time, Navin Chawla went on a month long leave. As many as eight reminders later, Navin Chawla replied back stating that he is seeking legal help about the matter and writes to the Law Ministry. Finally, on 10th December 2008, Navin Chawla replied with a 150 page letter denying BJP's allegations.
Little over a month later, the CEC writes to the President recommending Chawla's removal. Gopalaswami has detailed 12 specific cases of partisanship and annexed several hundred pages of the Election Commission minutes, internal correspondence, etc in support of the case he has built up against his colleague. Gopalaswami notes that whenever the full bench of the Election Commission was seized of an issue, Chawla will make an excuse of going to the bathroom.
Soon after, invariably, the CEC got phone calls from top Congress functionaries even as the meeting was in progress. The CEC in no uncertain terms has expressed that inside deliberations and details of the meetings were invariably being conveyed to Congress party.
From what is available in the public domain so far, there is no legally tenable evidence to prove that Chawla talked to the Congress leaders and leaked the EC's decisions, but there are numerous cases of circumstantial evidence to prove that Chawla was all the time in touch with Congress leaders.
President Pratibha Patil is understood to have forwarded the CEC's recommendations to the Central Government, which ought to have taken a decision by now. The issue is not just about one bureaucrat acusing the other. It assumes urgency due to the fact that N. Gopalaswami retires as CEC on April 20, 2009. The person who is tipped to succeed him is none other than Navin Chawla. Another reason for the urgent disposal of this matter is because the country will be in the midst of the electoral process when the change of baton takes place at Nirvachan Sadan. Thus the unprecedented step by Gopalaswami just a few weeks before his retirement has raked up a huge political controversy and can lead to a crisis of confidence in the Election Commission especially if Chawla is appointed by the government to the top Constitutional post without addressing the issues raised by the CEC.
When the media got hold of the CEC's recommendation to the President, quite expectedly it opened a can of worms. Most of the political parties, barring the Opposition BJP, blamed Gopalaswami for having precipitated a crisis at the eleventh hour. The fact of the matter was that Chawla was responsible for the inordinate delay by the CEC to make his recommendation. While the reaction of the political parties are very much on the expected lines, surprisingly, most in the mainstream media has chosen to attack the CEC over the timing of the recommendation, notwithstanding the fact that CEC's unprecedented action has only strengthened the democracy. Legal experts and former attorney generals are divided on whether Article 324(5) of the Constitution can be used suo moto by the CEC Gopalaswami.
While N. Gopalaswami's career has remained spotless so far, it will be interesting to look at the history of Navin Chawla. An IAS officer of 1969 batch, Navin Chawla started his career as a Sub-Divisional magistrate in Delhi. At the early stages of his career, Chawla had his loyalty towards the first family of Congress that his actions found detailed mention in the report of Shah Commission, which was formed to probe the excesses committed during the Emergency (1975-77). As a low-ranking bureaucrat during the Emergency (Navin Chawla was private secretary to the lieutenant governor of Delhi, Kishan Chand) Chawla, along with his cohorts in the police at the time, 'exercised enormous powers during the emergency because they had easy access to the then prime minister Indira Gandhi'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 fair play and consideration for others. The Shah Commission noted that in their relish for power, they completely subverted the normal channels of command and administrative procedures.
Another committee headed by L.P.Singh, that was set up to advise follow-up action on the Shah Committee, opined that Chawla unfit to hold any public office and that he deserved to be summarily dismissed from service without any further inquiry or proceedings. Had it not been for the bureaucratic delays and the subsequent fall of the Janata Party government led by Charan Singh, Navin Chawla would not have been an national embarassment that he is now. Fall of Charan Singh's government and the subsequent return of Indira Gandhi to power resulted in those indicted by Shah Commission including Navin Chawla getting restored to plump positions in the corridors of power.
The Election Commission was envisaged by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution as an independent body and hence cannot and should not be seen to serve any political party. It is vital that this sensitive constitutional body is occupied by person of integrity, impartiality and independence. The Election Commission's claim to neutrality and objectivity should not be allowed to be marred by one controversial bureaucrat. Appointing a person with Navin Chawla's credentials itself is a brazen defiance of norms of accountability in public life. This is very much apart from the allegations related to Chawla's trust receiving land from Rajasthan Government and funds from the MPLADS, as mentioned earlier in this post. At the time of writing, Congress has been vehemently opposing CEC Gopalaswami's recommendation and has been insisting that Navin Chawla would take over as CEC after April 20, 2009.
It is not just the Congress that tries to place its favourite men at sensitive positions. Back in February 2004, just before the eve of the last general elections, when J.M. Lyngdoh retired as CEC, Atal Behari Vajpayee's NDA government was not keen on elevating the senior-most Commissioner, T.S. Krishnamurthy. It had reportedly zeroed in on a former Cabinet Secretary, T.R. Prasad, as the CEC. The government is not duty bound to elevate the senior-most Commissioner as the chief. However, the convention was clear and in favour of T.S. Krishnamurthy. It was only the threat of resignation by the two Commissioners, Krishnamurthy and B.B. Tandon (who later became the CEC upon Krishnamurthy's retirement and who handed over the baton to the incumbent Gopalaswami), that dissuaded the Vajpayee government from taking the precipitous step.
Coming back to the current crisis, moral wisdom demands that Government remove Navin Chawla at once, even if it appears to favour the opposition. But, how practical is it to expect this bit of justice from a party that installed a disgraced person at the Rashtrapathi Bhavan and a puppet at 7 Race Course Road, New Delhi.
posted by Indian Voter at 5:45:00 AM
2 comments
