M A I N   N E W S

Removal of Navin Chawla from EC
SC keen to examine Cabinet decision
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, May 8
In an another issue with a potential of creating more problems for the UPA government, the Supreme Court today expressed its desire to examine the advice given by the Cabinet to President on NDA’s representation for the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla on the question of accepting money from some Congress MPs’ MPLAD scheme for his two family trusts.

A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhan and Dalveer Bhandari told additional solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam that it would like to see the advice of the Cabinet given to President APJ Abdul Kalam.

The court rejected the plea of “privilege” claimed by the government counsel on showing the records, saying after the passage of the Right to Information Act there was nothing of “privilege” to hide the matter form the court.

The ASG reluctantly agreed to show it to the court with the condition that the documents would not be made available to petitioner, BJP leader Jaswant Singh, who had challenged the course adopted by Dr Kalam of sending the memorandum of 205 NDA MPs for Chawla’s removal to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for Cabinet advice.

“Keep the files ready… we would like to see them as the affidavit filed by the government has no reference about the Cabinet advice,” the court told Subramaniam, while adjourning the hearing for Wednesday.

This came as a surprise to the UPA government after the court had asked the government counsel whether the Cabinet had given its advice to the President or not.

When Subramaniam said the advice had been given to Dr Kalam, the court asked then why this fact was not mentioned in the affidavit.

Jaswant Singh in his petition had questioned the sending of NDA’s representation by the President to the Prime Minister for Cabinet’s advice, with his counsel Soli J. Sorabjee stating that the Constitution clearly had laid down that the Cabinet had no role on the removal of an Election Commissioner as any advice in this regard had to be taken solely from the Chief Election Commissioner.

Sorabjee said this provision had been made purposely in Article 324 of the Constitution to maintain “complete independence of the Election Commission and to uphold the purity of elections, which is essential for success of the democracy”.

The executive has no role in the removal of either Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), who could only be removed through an impeachment motion and the Election Commissioner for whom recommendation of the CEC was necessary.

During the inconclusive hearing the court acknowledged to Sorabjee’s stand saying “we appreciate the arguments that the President should not have referred it to the Cabinet.

The issue of Cabinet advice cropped up after the court asked if any decision had been taken by it making it clear that a “sword should continue to hang” on the head of an EC whose appointment was challenged as it would affect the functioning of the EC itself.