New Delhi: Observing that substantial questions of law are involved in the BJP's petition seeking removal of the Election Commissioner, Navin Chawla, the Supreme Court on Friday posted the case for final hearing on May 8.

To a question from a Bench of Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice V.S. Sirpurkar whether President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam could send the petition submitted by the BJP to the government instead of seeking the opinion of the Chief Election Commissioner, Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam said there could not be an automatic reference. The Bench observed, "Let the President say so."

The Bench said "The question here is whether the President should seek the opinion of the Cabinet or the opinion of the CEC." Mr. Subramaniam said the questions required to be gone into by a Constitution Bench.

Senior counsel, Soli Sorabjee, appearing for the petitioner, Jaswant Singh, leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha said that since important questions of law were involved the matter should be heard expeditiously. The Bench agreed and posted the case for final disposal on May 8 and asked the parties to file written submissions.

In its response, the Centre gave a clean chit to the Election Commissioner, Navin Chawla saying that the allegations made against him in the writ petition were unfounded and there was no ground for interference. It said, "The allegations do not make out any case of illegality and/or impropriety which would warrant the initiation of further steps by the Executive Government to seek the removal of Mr. Navin Chawla."

Justifying the decision of Mr. Kalam in forwarding the memorandum submitted by Mr. Singh to the government, the Centre said that appointments to the post of Election Commissioner and Chief Election Commissioner were made by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

"Likewise, in the matters relating to removal of an Election Commissioner or Chief Election Commissioner, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers becomes relevant in the matter," it said.

On the petitioner's contention that the President ought to have referred the memorandum to the Chief Election Commissioner, the Centre said, "The views of the CEC can be sought only if there is a proposal from the Union Government for removal of the Election Commissioner and general recommendations upon `suitability' are completely outside the purview of the exercise contemplated under Article 324(5) of the Constitution."

It said, "The CEC cannot be compelled to act in any manner unless and until the Executive Government has taken a view in this regard."

Further if the power under Article 324(5) of the Constitution were to be exercised by the CEC as per his whims and caprice, the CEC would become an instrument of oppression and destroy the independence of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners if they were to function under the threat of the CEC recommending removal.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail