Murder of Indian democracy–‘Favourite’ hangman chosen

Now the expected national disaster has taken place. Our President whose long standing loyalty to the Congress Party in general and to the Nehru family in particular is well known, has rejected the fair, objective and fearless recommendation of Gopalaswami, Chief Election Commissioner for the removal of Navin Chawla, Election Commissioner under Article 324 (5) of the Indian Constitution. It is reliably understood that this recommendation was made by Gopalaswami taking note of the clearly known antecedents of Navin Chawla right from the days of emergency in 1975-1977. At that time he was Secretary to Kishan Chand, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and had abused his official authority in collusion with Sanjay Gandhi. This was indicted by the Shah Commission in these words: ‘Navin Chawla acted as the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Kishan Chand had to suffer the ignominy of serving as his Lieutenant.’ According to all the opposition parties, for the next 20 years, Navin Chawla acted as an informal political agent of the Congress party! More than 205 MPs had sent a representation against the appointment of Navin Chawla to the post of Election Commissioner. To cap it all, whilst being a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), he was running a trust in the name of his wife in Rajasthan and several Congress MPs, Congress Governors and Congress Ministers had contributed several lakhs of rupees as outright donations to this trust. And yet all these irregular acts of Navin Chawla were condoned by the Government. And now the non-descript President of India has put her final seal of approval on the appointment of Navin Chawla as Chief Election Commissioner to succeed Sri Gopalaswami who will retiring on 20 April, 2009. Thus the planned and brutal murder of Indian Democracy under Sonia Congress has been accomplished smoothly!

When Pratibha Patil was proposed for the Highest Constitutional Office of Indian President by Sonia Gandhi in 2007, Arun Shourie, the former Union Cabinet Minister had written a series of articles relating to the dubious and shady antecedents of Pratibha Patil and some members of her family. In these columns, I had written a series of five articles under the title ‘Why a President with criminal antecedents?’ The worst fears of enlightened and responsible citizens of India expressed fearlessly in May and June 2007 about the candidature of Mrs. Pratibha Patil have come true today! She has rejected the absolutely correct, objective, fair and fearless recommendation made by Gopalaswami under Article 324 (5) of the Indian Constitution for the removal of Navin Chawla from the office of the Election Commissioner on the valid public grounds of partiality, prejudiced functioning, pronounced pro-Sonia Congress leanings, known anti-Hindu and anti-BJP feelings etc. Much before she was elected as Indian President, I had clearly indicated in June 2007 itself that she is being planted in that position in advance by Sonia Gandhi to suitably manipulate the process of appointment of Congress Prime Minister after the general election of 2009!

Immediately after Gopalaswami sent his letter of recommendation for the removal of Navin Chawla to the President of India, our Union Law Minister had openly come out in support of Navin Chawla. He even went to the extent of questioning the Constitutional authority of Chief Election Commissioner under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution. Pratibha Patil is a Congress woman. Our Union Law Minister is a Congress man. Navin Chawla is a known Congress man. All of them are known tenants at will, holding such public Offices as they are holding, at the sole will, whim, caprice and pleasure of Sonia Gandhi. It is not therefore surprising that all of them seem to be working in unison to rig the general elections of 2009 in favour of Sonia Congress party.

Election Commission is the fountainhead and apex authority for the smooth functioning of our democracy. Let me refer to Proviso 2 under Article 324 (clause 5) of the Constitution of India: Proviso 2 states:

PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ANY OTHER ELECTION COMMISSIONER OR A REGIONAL COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE EXCEPT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER.” While the first proviso to clause (5) of Article 324 of the Constitution stipulates that “the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court…’, the second proviso lays down that any other Election Commissioner or Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

A plain reading and interpretation of the proviso 2 under article 324 suggests that the power and jurisdiction under the Constitution to recommend removal of an Election Commissioner (EC) vests solely and exclusively with the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and no other authority — neither the Government nor even the judiciary is empowered to make such a recommendation. The moment information about the bona fides of an EC comes into his possession either from his own observation or from reliable and responsible sources, the CEC is duty bound to activate the process of ascertaining the truth of it and exercise his power to make an appropriate recommendation. It is far-fetched to argue, as some experts have done, that he has to await some reference from an extraneous agency, whether it is the Government or any other, before initiating the process and making his recommendation. Since the CEC is the only person qualified to make the recommendation, by implication, no other authority has the power to second-guess it or sit in judgment over it. The Law Minister has asserted that an EC can be removed only by impeachment like the CEC. Such a stand flies against the letter and spirit of the Constitution as it stands at present and it is disturbing that a Law Minister should be making such an obviously untenable statement.

Neither the Union Law Minister nor for that matter any Judge, including the Chief Justice of India, has a right to take away the Constitutional Right of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) to make this recommendation for the removal of any Election Commissioner (EC) working under his overall control. Article 324 (v) gives freedom and discretion to the Chief Election Commissioner to sit in Judgement on the administrative suitability/desirability of having a known pro-Congress (24 x 7) man like Navin Chawla as his Election Commissioner, particularly with Parliamentary Elections 2009 round the corner.

Two months before his appointment as Election Commissioner in 2005, using his clout with Sonia Gandhi and the Congress Party, Navin Chawla was moving for his appointment as Union Home Secretary. At that time on 16 March 2005, I wrote in News Today under the headline ‘SHAME WITHOUT HONOUR’: ‘People who are worried about good governance in India are quite shocked by the recent news item that the present Union Information and Broadcasting Secretary Navin Chawla is being tipped for the post of Union Home Secretary which is now being held by Dhirendar Singh. Dhirendar Singh is retiring on 31 March, 2005. Navin Chawla is due for retirement on 31 July, 2005. The most spectacularly classical element in Indian bureaucracy is that whilst all bureaucrats of similar seniority are equal on paper, yet some chosen few are more equal than others. Navin Chawla belongs to the latter category with tremendous clout in the UPA government thanks to his unbroken record of loyalty and ‘service’ to the Nehru family. He was very close to Sanjay Gandhi and wielded unprecedented power in his official capacity as Secretary to the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi Kishan Chand during Emergency in 1975-77. He functioned as the de–facto Governor of Delhi and several bureaucrats who happened to interact with him during this period have confirmed the fact that he was known for his unabashed authoritarianism’… Any other officer with this kind of background would have been sidelined under the cliché ridden dead political clause of ‘LAW WILL TAKE ITS OWN COURSE’. But there are spectacular exceptions to this general rule in our decadent and Perverted democracy. Navin Chawla comes under the most outstanding exception category’.

Later, in these very columns in News Today on 9-2-2006, in an article titled ‘FOR GOD’S SAKE, GO! NAVIN CHAWLA!’ I had written on the public unsuitability of Navin Chawla for the high Constitutional appointment of Election Commissioner. My words are no less relevant today than they were on 9-2-2006:

‘Chawla’s appointment as Election Commissioner was against the public interest and all the more objectionable because, by sheer seniority, Chawla would be the Chief Election Commissioner in 2009 when the general election is due. It may not be out of place or out of context to reasonably imagine that Sonia Gandhi has cleverly planted him in this post keeping in view the interest of her son Rahul Gandhi whom she wants to elevate to the post of Prime Minister of India in 2009. In case Navin Chawla performs as per her expectations in 2009, he may as well land up to begin with as the Vice-President of India and later with Sonia willing, may even become the Indian President! Normally when we are helpless we say that ‘God only knows!’ But unfortunately for India and for all of us, even God does not know. Perhaps ‘Sonia only knows’ - all the way, now and for ever!!”

It is a matter of national shame that we have had a surrogate Prime Minister from May 2004; we have had a surrogate President from August 2007; and we are going to have a surrogate Chief Election Commissioner from April 20, 2009. With their favorite hangman in position, the cold-blooded murder of Indian Democracy by Sonia Congress will be total and complete. GOD SAVE INDIA AND HER PEOPLE!