NAVIN.B.CHAWLA [THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ELECTION COMMISSIONER]

            Right from the day, he has assumed the office of the election commissioner in 2005, Navin.B.chawla has landed himself in many controversies. Every time, he is caught up in a controversy, the office of the election commission gets defamed. Hardly, three months are there for him to assume the most coveted office of the chief election commissioner [CEC], the present CEC, Gopalswamy, has suo-motu has sent a recommendation for his removal to the president. This has raked up constitutional and institutional controversies. Before moving to the constitutional controversies, let us see the factorsthat has led to the following events.

             First, during the emergency of (1975-1977), Navin chawla was secretary to the Lt.governor of Delhi. The SHAH commission that inquired into the “emergency excesses” has described him to have behaved in an authoritarian manner and misused the power in a way to disregard the welfare of the citizens. The SHAH commission also declared that he is not fit to hold any public office.

             Second, in 2006, the BJP submitted a petition to the president for his removal, along with the consent of about 200 MPs. The reason cited was, chawla’s jaipur based Lala chamanlal education trust has secured MPLADS funds from 4 congress MPs. They accused that chawla was allotted 6 acres of land from the congress government of Rajasthan. So the BJP accused him of having leanings with the congress.

             Third, BJP also filed a petition in the supreme court challenging his integrity and impartiality. As, the litigation headed no way, they ultimately with drew it.

             Now, the present CEC, Mr.Gopalswamy has recommended for his removal (suo motu) to the office of the President of India on the grounds of “partisanship”. Now this has raked up the major constitutional controversy. The election commissioners are treated on par with the chief election commissioner in terms of functions, salaries and allowances. Only difference is the chief election commissioner acts as the chairman of the commission with administrative responsibilities. To protect the independence of the election commission from the arbitrariness of the executive, the constitution of India holds that he shall be removed by the way of impeachment for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. To protect the office of other election commissioners, the constitution of India has laid that, the other election commissioners cannot be removed except on the recommendation of the Chief election commissioner. It does not mean that CEC has his free will for the removal the other election commissioners. The convention is that the objective of the removal of the election commissioners should start from the political government. Only based on that, the CEC can give his recommendation. But in this case, the CEC has himself initiated for the removal of the election commissioner.

             Reading by the lines of the constitution, the CEC has the right to recommend for the removal of the other election commissioners to the president. But according to the democratic convention, the initiation for the removal of the Election commissioner should initiate from the political government. The constitution has rested the “recommendation” power on the CEC only to protect the independence of other election commissioners from the arbitrariness of the executive. So one more testing time for the president, supreme court, constitution and the democratic values. Let us see what stands the test of time?