In response to a news report titled ‘Gopalaswami’s stand opposed,’ published in these columns on Saturday, the Chief Election Commissioner writes:
“I am quite amused by a story which was published on the first page of The Hindu, dated August 11, 2007 wherein an assertion has been attributed to me which I never made and then proceeds to demolish the ‘assertion’ I never made.
“If only your correspondent had taken the trouble of perusing or of checking the contents with me, he would not have categorically stated in the first paragraph of the story that I had asserted in my affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that I had the power under Article 324(5) of the Constitution to remove the Election Commissioner. My affidavit nowhere talks about removal. In fact the story under the byline of the Legal Correspondent of The Hindu of the 3 August, very clearly brings out ‘CEC can recommend action against Commissioner.’ In fact, only your newspaper of 3 August edition carried the content of my affidavit correctly while some other papers used the word ‘removal’. I had sent word to them that their reporting was incorrect.
“Your paper’s edition of 8 August, however, committed the same mistake and used the word ‘removal’ which I immediately pointed out to your Legal Correspondent.
‘Irrelevant’
“Having attributed an assertion to me which I never made, the news item then proceeds to demolish it in paras 2 and 3 quoting other authorities that ‘CEC has no power to decide the issue’ since I never made the assertion which the correspondent attributes to me. In the first instance, his ‘demolition’ of my ‘assertion’ is entirely irrelevant.
“The next point is about the view of the senior and responsible officer of the Commission who reportedly said that my view was a ‘personal view.’ I would like to point out that the Supreme Court wanted the opinion of the CEC and in that case only CEC can express his opinion and to that extent, they are the ‘personal’ views of the CEC. As regards the Commission’s stand in regard to the removal of any Election Commissioner is concerned, the Commission has in the past and even now subscribes to the view that all the three should be treated equally. However, until Article 324(5) of the Constitution is amended, the legal position is that in regard to the removal, the CEC and the ECs are placed on different footing.
“It may perhaps be of interest to your newspaper to note that in his written statement before the Supreme Court, Shri Ram Jethmalani, the counsel for Shri Navin Chawla, clearly concedes the point in para 10 that ‘A Chief Election Commissioner knowing from his personal knowledge that an Election Commissioner is unfit to hold that office must be thoroughly incompetent or corrupt himself, if he takes no action at all.’ (emphasis added). The Supreme Court had the following to say in the case of T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner of India vs. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 811 ‘the Scheme of Article 324 is that after insulating the CEC by the first proviso to Clause (5), the ECs and RCs have been assured independence of functioning by providing that they cannot be removed except on the recommendation of the CEC. Of course, the recommendation for removal must be based on intelligible, and cogent considerations which would have relation to efficient functioning of the Election Commission… It is, therefore, needless to emphasise that the CEC must exercise this power only when there exists valid reasons which are conducive to efficient functioning of the Election Commission. This, briefly stated, indicates the status of the various functionaries constituting the Election Commission.’
“Since your newspaper has attributed to me an assertion which I never made, in fairness, I expect that this clarification will be published with equal prominence.
“I am attaching herewith a copy of my affidavit before the Supreme Court, and a copy of para 10 of the written statement submitted by Shri Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Navin Chawla.”
