NEW DELHI: In his counter filed in the Supreme Court of India on Friday, Election Commissioner Navin Chawla has characterised as "entirely unfounded and misconceived" the allegations made against him in a writ petition by Jaswant Singh, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha.

Responding to the notice issued by the court, Mr. Chawla in his affidavit refuted the three main allegations made against him in Mr. Singh's petition. These were that he was "close to a political party, and, therefore, partisan and that my testimony before Justice J.C. Shah Commission of Inquiry would establish my partisanship"; that he owed his success as a career-oriented civil servant to "the munificence of a political party"; and that he ran "`private' trusts into which contributions have been made by various political persons" and, therefore, his character was "inconsistent with the dignity of the office of an Election Commissioner."

"No report made against me"

Responding to the first point, Mr. Chawla said that during the course of his career, he had occasion to serve many different governments, at the Centre as well as in the Union Territories. "During the course of so many postings, I am unaware that there was ever any report made against me by any Government whatsoever, and in fact, none has ever been communicated to me. I therefore, believe that my service was without blemish of any kind and there were no question marks on my character, integrity, efficiency and honesty particularly since I had reached the senior-most positions under the Government of India."

As for his "alleged past conduct in the period 1975-1977, upon which the petitioner so vehemently relies," Mr. Chawla said in his affidavit that the report of the Justice Shah Commission was "contrary to law and in utter violation of the statutory rights and protection given under Section 8-B and Section 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, to me, the person affected and is thus wholly vitiated, void and non-est and inadmissible in evidence."

The High Court of Delhi in the case of `Smt. Indira Gandhi vs. Justice J.C. Shah Commission' held that the procedure adopted by the Commission was in violation of the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1951 as well as in violation of principles of natural justice and hence stood vitiated and rendered void.

Mr. Chawla said this matter was not even considered to be of any significance or relevance in his promotions as and when they became due under different governments.

He pointed out that he was appointed as an Additional Secretary in 2001 and Secretary in July 2003 when the National Democratic Alliance Government was in power.

In any case, his "alleged past conduct in the period 1975-1977, upon which the petitioner so vehemently relies, has absolutely no relevance to my current appointment as Election Commissioner of India.

In fact, it is my conduct as Election Commissioner in relation to the efficient functioning of the Election Commission and its proceedings, which would be relevant for the purposes of invoking and/or setting into motion any action under Art.324 of the Constitution of India."

"No funds received after becoming EC"

On the allegations of floating trusts, he said that the public trusts were set up for the welfare of people after obtaining permission from the government. He said he had donated to the Lepra India Trust Rs. 45 lakh, which he had received as royalty emanating from the two books he wrote. Mr. Chawla said that all donations whether received from "MPLAD or not" were fully utilised by the trusts for the purpose and the objectives they were created for. Further, no funds were sought or obtained by the said trusts after his appointment as Election Commissioner, in keeping with the standards of the high office.

On a constitutional issue, Mr. Chawla said that in terms of Article 324 (5) of the Constitution, the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner would become relevant only when the President (acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers) took a decision to remove an Election Commissioner.

"The recommendation of the CEC is neither binding nor mandatory, definitely is not contemplated while considering the appointment or suitability of the Election Commissioner," he said.

Responding to an assertion in Mr. Jaswant Singh's petition that there was reason to believe that in the conduct of the proceedings of Election Commission the suggestions made by Mr. Chawla and the points raised by him were "excessively partisan in nature," the counter denied this allegation as "entirely false, vexatious and wholly vague and baseless."

Mr. Chawla pointed out that "all the decisions made by the Commission since my appointment as Election Commissioner were unanimous excepting one case where I had given my dissent but that had no relation to any alleged partiality or favour to help any political party."

He characterised the proceedings of the Election Commission of India as "entirely transparent and impartial."

Mr. Chawla said the petition against him was "not a bona fide writ petition but... an abuse of the judicial process for conducting a fishing and roving enquiry to discredit, without any basis in law and/or fact, a high constitutional functionary and to bring the office of the Election Commission into disrepute." He sought its dismissal.

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