CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu Government is adopting a "confrontationist attitude" on the transfer of Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police, R. Nataraj, the Election Commission of India told the Madras High Court on Friday.

Senior counsel for the Commission, G. Rajagopal, making his submissions before a Division Bench of Justice Prafulla Kumar Misra and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, said: "It is the absolute privilege of the Commission to have an officer of its choice at the time of elections... It is not desirable to have this Commissioner during elections. Why should the Commission wait for an empty formality of notification of the elections... After the notification an officer can be shifted by the Commission unilaterally." The State Government's attitude amounted to interference in the election process, he said.

Denying that the impugned order of the Commission had anything to do with a representation from a Union Minister, Mr. Rajagopal said it was received only on March 16, whereas the order seeking Mr. Nataraj's transfer was communicated to the State Government on March 13. The impugned order was passed based on a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer. He argued that the Commission was entitled to harbour the apprehension that Mr. Nataraj, if he were to continue in the post, would not obey its orders during elections. "The Commission wants a free and fair election and it is entitled to create a conducive atmosphere by replacing people with officials of its choice." Such an action need not await poll notification. When Mr.Rajagopal insisted that, "we are seeking his transfer to ensure a free and fair election," the Bench commented, "You will have the powers only after April 13, when poll notifications are scheduled to be issued."

However, senior counsel argued that the Supreme Court had held that the Commission's view on law and order and other requirements alone would prevail. It is mandated to constitute a "proper legislature" by due process of law. The objective could not be achieved if its directions were not respected and implemented. Article 324 of the Constitution mandated the Commission to have superintendence, direction and control over others. As the arguments remained inconclusive, the Bench adjourned the matter to March 27.

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