CHENNAI: The fact that Tamil Nadu Government is showing "special interest" in retaining R. Nataraj as Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police itself justifies the Election Commission's move to transfer him out of the post, the Commission has told the Madras High Court.

A counter-affidavit of Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu Naresh Gupta, filed in response to a writ petition from the Home Secretary, submitted that it was the duty of the Commission to ensure that every officer entrusted with the task of conducting election or maintaining law and order during elections performed his duty "dispassionately, impartially and with complete neutrality and does not take any side with any political party or leader compromising his position."

Creates apprehension

Mr. Nataraj's reported statement praising the Chief Minister "can create a serious apprehension in the minds of electors, candidates, political parties and other stakeholders about his impartiality, objectivity and neutrality," Mr. Gupta contended.

The Commission decided to transfer Mr. Nataraj keeping in mind the importance of public perception of neutrality and fairness as the election was not only to be conducted in a free and fair manner but should also be seen to have been conducted in such a manner, it said.

Maintaining that as per Article 324 of the Constitution, the Commission's powers were executive, legislative and judicial, it said the power did not begin with the date of notification. "It actually commences from the date the elections are announced.".

`No jurisdiction'

When the matter came up before a Division Bench comprising Justice Prafulla Kumar Misra and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, senior counsel for one of the petitioners Vijay Narayan submitted that the Election Commission had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned directive as the election notification was yet to come and the State Government was yet to designate officials for poll duty.

Only when the officials concerned were deputed to poll duty would they come under the jurisdiction of the Commission, he said. Shanti Bhushan, senior counsel for Union Minister A. Raja, said Mr. Nataraj was a "sycophant" and added that if he continued in the post of Commissioner, elections to the constituencies under his jurisdiction would not be free and fair. Stressing that polls must appear to have been conducted in a free and fair atmosphere, the senior counsel said the "great admiration" shown by the Commissioner would have an impact among the public as well as his subordinate force. He said he had been urging the Election Commission to conduct polls by deploying officials drawn from another State in order to maintain neutrality.

Advocate-General N.R. Chandran, pointing out that the Commission's fiat did not give any reasons for transferring Mr. Nataraj, argued, "keeping which officer at which place is the discretion of the State Government." Alleging that the Election Commission had not placed entire particulars before court, Mr. Chandran wanted the Bench to call for all the records from the Commission. Arguments are to continue on Thursday afternoon.

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