Navin Chawla leaked election commission minutes to Congress : CEC

[seedhi]

Chawla's loo breaks led to Congress phone calls: CEC Election Commissioner Navin Chawla's excuses and frequent visits to the washroom whenever crucial decisions were taken by the full bench of the Election Commission, is among the instances cited by the Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami in his letter to the President recommending the former's removal. In the report to the President, the CEC notes that whenever the full bench meeting was seized of an issue, Chawla will make an excuse of going to the washroom. And soon thereafter, invariably, the CEC would get phone calls from top Congress functionaries even as the meeting was in progress. This amounted to interference in the functioning of the Election Commission, the CEC felt. In his report, Gopalaswami also elaborated on the visit of the prime minister's Principal Secretary T K A Nair to Nirvachan Sadan, which houses the Election Commission of India in New Delhi, to enquire about the 'notice' being sent to Congress president Sonia Gandhi on her receiving an award from Belgium. Gopalaswami felt that inside deliberations and details of the meetings were invariably being conveyed to a political party. The CEC has cited 12 instances to conclude that Chawla has not remained impartial in his role as Election Commissioner. The CEC's letter to the President recommending Chawla's removal is just two pages long, and he has dealt with 12 specific cases of partisanship in another 24 pages and annexed more than 800 pages of the Election Commission minutes, internal correspondence, etc in support of the case he has built up against his colleague. Sources said Gopalaswami also personally apprised the President, the Cabinet Secretary and the PM's principal secretary about Chawla's misconduct with the staff to assert that he is not fit to continue in the Election Commission. The CEC has conveyed to top government functionaries the complaints of two deputy election commissioners in this regard. Rajashri Bhattacharya, a 1979 batch IAS officer of the Andhra cadre, had even complained to the Cabinet Secretary that Chawla had abused him and threatened to get him arrested. Bhattacharya has since moved to the Planning Commission. R Balasubramanian, an Orissa cadre IAS officer, is the other deputy election commissioner who complained to the CEC in writing against Chawla. The CEC also received a complaint that Chawla went out of his way to help a pandal owner during the recent Delhi assembly elections by calling up electoral officers to hire material from him. Though Gopalaswami has not identified the Congress leaders prompted by Chawla to call up and interfere in the Election Commission's functioning in his report to the President, he has named T K A Nair as having visited him. Gopalaswami says Nair tried to scuttle the notice against the Congress president, pleading that the prime minister has already examined the matter and found that there was no case against Sonia Gandhi. After five months of deliberations, the Election Commission decided to serve notice on Sonia Gandhi. She replied but the Election Commission is not able to firm up its views since Chawla is dragging his feet in submitting his comments, the CEC's report says. The CEC's report says irrespective of whether Chawla consents to a decision or finds himself singled out by a majority of Gopalaswami and S Y Quraishi, the other Election Commissioner, he appears to be in the habit of conveying all the minutes of their internal meetings to the Congress leadership. The report mentions the CEC getting a phone call from a top Congress functionary when the Election Commission was debating the possible dates for the Gujarat assembly elections and holding them in three phases as the home ministry was reluctant to provide sufficient central forces to complete it in two phases. Sources stated that the Congress functionary whom the CEC does not name is none else but Ahmed Patel, Sonia Gandhi's political secretary, who talked to him in Gujarati, but this could not be confirmed. Gopalaswami, who is a Gujarat cadre IAS officer and speaks Gujarati fluently, countered as to how he learnt about the details when the EC's deliberations were still in progress. Sources said Ahmed Patel reportedly wriggled out, stating that he got it from a source and assured sufficient central forces to complete the elections in two phases. And in no time the home ministry informed the CEC that central forces can be provided to conduct the polls in two phases and so the elections were held in two phases. In another instance, Chawla found himself in a minority on holding the Himachal Pradesh assembly elections ahead of the completion of the five-year term of the present House. Even before the minutes were drawn up, the CEC got a phone call from then chief minister Veerbhadra Singh to defer announcement of the elections. Another senior Congress functionary wanted to meet the EC's full bench to plead against the elections three months ahead of the House term. Sources identified this functionary as R K Dhawan, a senior Congress Working Committee member, who is very close to the Gandhi family. Again, this could not be confirmed. Other instances cited by the CEC for removing Chawla include those related to the Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, Bhagalpur by-election, and the controversial BJP CD case during the Uttar Pradesh elections. http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/02chawlas-loo-breaks-led-to-congress-phone-calls-cec.htm

Navin Chawla was a stooge of Congress, this was well known. This is all in the Conmgress tradition of giving a hoot about the sanctity of constitutional bodies. If the govt doesnt remove Chawla, then the opposition should raise a total stink about it, maybe even threaten to boycott the elections

[Guest dada_rocks]

This guy had been bonafide pointman and trigger-happy officer of emergency era.. In history of India you won't find any election commissioner's appointment resulting into 200+ MPs sending formal complaint to the president ( well who is another stooge and crook in first place). This gentleman was the lone voice who thought Sonia Maino using phrase "maut ka saudagar" was fine. If this nonsense continues pretty soon we will have pakistani style democracy.. Congress must change its autocratic ways

[Guest dada_rocks]

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090203&fname=ramaswamy&sid=1 CEC V/s EC The controversy regarding Navin Chawla is not a new one, nor is it entirely a Congress-BJP question. Unfortunate as the timing may be, the CEC's recommendation should be judged only on a careful examination of the grounds on which it is based. Ramaswamy R. Iyer | e-mail | one page format | feedback: send | The points that have been made in the criticisms of the Chief Election Commissioner’s recommendation of the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla include the following: the Election Commission is a body of equals, and the CEC is only one among equals; it is unfortunate that the CEC should have made such a recommendation about one of his own colleagues; he was wrong to make it suo motu, without a reference from the Government; this raises doubts about his motivation and about his political leanings; and the timing of the recommendation, with an election in the offing, is inappropriate. These are examined below. That the CEC is only one among equals is a questionable view on at least two grounds. First, the fact that the Constitution does not mandate but only enables the appointment of Election Commissioners, and that we can have, and did have for many years, an Election Commission with only the CEC, clearly places the CEC on a different footing from the ECs. Second, the fact that the Constitution has given to the CEC the power of making a recommendation for the removal of an Election Commissioner implies a clear difference between the CEC and the ECs. It is not clear how in the face of that provision anyone can hold that the CEC and the ECs are equals. It could indeed be argued that the CEC and the ECs ought to be given exactly the same kind of protection against arbitrary removal, but that is not what the Constitution says; a constitutional amendment would be needed to bring that about. The objection to a suo motu recommendation has no force. The Constitution merely says that an EC cannot be removed except on a recommendation by the CEC. It does not say that the CEC can make such a recommendation only on a reference from the government. The Law Minister may consider that desirable, but there is no constitutional basis for such a view. The argument that it was improper or in bad taste to make such a recommendation against a colleague is strange. It is precisely about a colleague that the CEC is constitutionally empowered to make that recommendation. It is indeed unfortunate that there should be dissension within the Commission. However, it has been there for a long time. The CEC’s action is the outcome of the long-standing dissension and not the cause. The controversy regarding Chawla is not a new one, nor is it entirely a Congress-BJP question. When Chawla was appointed as EC, many in the country were dismayed. Some even wrote to the President of India on the subject. The BJP petitioned the Supreme Court, but withdrew its petition when the CEC submitted an affidavit that it was within his power to make a recommendation for the removal of an EC. That put the matter out of the Court and on hold, and gradually it faded from public memory. The CEC’s present action is merely the delayed outcome of that old story. It is ironic that in the process the controversy has shifted from Chawla to the CEC. The question of timing remains. The CEC, having stated in his affidavit before the Supreme Court that he had the power of making a recommendation for the removal of an EC, could have exercised it promptly either positively to make a recommendation for Chawla’s removal or negatively to say that he did not find grounds to do so. Doubtless he needed time to examine the matter, considering the serious nature of the decision, but the fact that the recommendation has been made now, with a Parliamentary election due shortly, has made many commentators criticise it as untimely. Unfortunate as the timing may be, it does not follow that having examined the matter, the CEC should refrain from acting on his findings. The rightness of that recommendation can be judged only on a careful examination of the grounds on which it is based. Finally, the established legal opinion seems to be that the recommendation is not binding on the government, and that it is the Appointing Authority, namely the President, that has the power of terminating the appointment. That is debatable, but in any case the CEC’s recommendation should clearly be given very careful consideration, and should not be rejected unless there are strong grounds for doing so. That is why it is disturbing to read reports about ‘sources’ saying that the CEC’s recommendation will be rejected and that Chawla will be the next CEC, implying that the recommendation will be rejected out of hand without due consideration. How will this affect the conduct of the forthcoming elections? Relationships within the Commission have been difficult for a long time, and they will continue to be difficult. Despite this, the Assembly elections were conducted well, and one hopes that the Parliamentary elections will also be managed efficiently and fairly.