Proviso Two to Section 5 of Article 324 of the Constitution states:"any Election Commissioner or a regional commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC."It may be noted that it is "on the recommendation of the CEC" and NOT"BY the recommendation of the CEC"!Further, the word "recommendation" implies that the authority to remove the EC is some other person and NOT the CECT How ,then, any one could insist that CEC's recommendation is binding?Or the CEC presume his "overreaching powers"? The authority to appoint the "CEC" as well as "other Election Commissioners" vests in the President (vide Art. 324(2). And the authority to"determine their service conditions and tenures as well as removal ,subject to certainconditions,rests with the President[vide Art.324 (5)]Hence, in the instant case the CEC has accepted a petition addressed to the President and acted on it.These are unauthorised acts.His report recommending the removal of EC is VOID.

Too much ado has been made about the so called "CEC'recommemdationfor removal of the EC!" Theactual wording is: "any otger EC or RCshall not be removed fromoffice except onrecommendation of the CEC".It has to be read with art. 324(5)which says the President has the authority to fix thw conditions of service and tenure of the ECs.He cannot remove the EC except on the recommndation of CEC., means getting the CEC's recommendation is a prerequisite for removal of an EC. CEChas no authority to recommend unless a reference is made to him.CEC has no authority to receive a petition addressed to the President and act on it.Further, wht he got was the copy of that petition.hebce,his action is wholly unauthorised and reportuncalled for and Void.

Art.324 (2) makes it clear that the President has the authority to appoint the CEC as well as the ECs.Proviso One to Art.324(5)lays down the stipulatedconditions as regards the removal of the CEC.And Proviso Two to the same stipulates that the EC shall not be removed from office except on the "recommendation of the CEC".It is submitted that it is the constitutional check on the authority of the President to avoid acting as per his whim or fancy. Hence, the appointing and removing authoirity for the Ecs being vested in the President, he is obliged toseek the recommendation for such removval.Hence,the Provis does not confer the right on the CEC to act suo motu and unilaterally recommend to the President the removal of an EC!The recommendation of the CEC in the instant case is 'ab inito'unauthorised and void on the following grounds:1.The CEC not realizing the inter relations between him and his appointing authority has presumed powers the constitution has not conferred on him.

Dear Sir, In the circumstances, if the if the rules provide for the removal of a biased member from the commission and the CEC so recommends their should not be any hesitation for the Government to remove this biased member. CEC who is shortly to retire could not have any personal vested interest in defaming one of his associates and could not be other than impartial legally on the right side in making the recommendation.Chawla should therefore quit, whatever Communist leaders smack of. They have already proved there utility during the past few years

These Raja's, Somnath's and crroked commies clibbed with anti national brigade of congress is a gang of nation's foes.They cry law when their act is exposed and abuses law against opposition parties.This was well settled fact on emergency and commie dogs rule in Kerala and Bengal.Navin Chwla was controversial when put at that place.Not because some political outfit pointed but the issue was raised by newspapers also. A similar issue was raised when MS Gill was given office ofprofit after his tenure as EC.One would be made to believe that he didnt extended unproven favors while in seat of EC.An exactly opposite case of MS GIll is that of Chawla, who proved his mantle to occupy this chair.

I am a Congress supporter since donkey days as this was the only party which could deliver some goods as assured by the spokesperson, albeit with a lots of sour icing from time to time. However, having a tainted person in the EC is a little too much-err muchh muchh. Can't these guys in New Delhi find atleast one 'clean' person from the billion populace? I know the ticking is too bad for both the nation and body politocos in the ensuing election. Who is responsible for all this tamsha! Not me alone, but all the so called pillars of democracy including the partisan press.What's wrong now in an EC being partisan? Yes it is confirmed he is partisan but as we all know the courts will go only into the nitty gritty and forget the main motto. Shoo away the controversial EC and get somebody like the Seshans of yesteryears. All parties are now waiting to make the final kill by having their own nominee, however Chawla still remains the darling of most as he can do the bidding for them.Eee Shi

Gopalaswami make this controversy becouse of his political motives after his retirment. BJP filed him in any paliament seat afer here reritement. Any away Ceaser's wife is above questions!

WHEN THE FACTS ARE AGAINST THE LITIGANT ARGUE THE LAW. THE STAND OF CONGRESS PARTY IS AS SIMPLE AS THE ABOVE WRITTEN LINE.CONGRESS MAN ARE NOT ARGUEING ON THE FACTS INSTEAD THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT LAW WHICH IS ALSO AS CLEAR AS SUN SHINE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. CONGRESS MAN ARE ONLY TRYING TO CONFUSE THE FACTS .

what happens if 2 election commissioners decide something and chief election commissioner decides something else? can CEC force others to accept his opinion? does CEC have veto power? suppose 2 election commisioners decide some election dates in april, but cec wants in march--then what happens? will the election commission now be expanded to 5 members?

Whatever may be the argument for and against the CEC's recommendation and its timing, one thing is very clear that Congress Party has always tried to influence the EC directly or indirectly at different times. If public memory is not short, the TN Seshan episode can still be refreshed. Navin Chawla hanging on after 205 MPs petitioned the President against him is a clear case of his partisan view. In all fairness he should have resigned long before. Similarly, announcement by the other EC recently about poll dates, which is yet to be decided by the EC is another example of UPA's misuse of constitutional machineries. To save democracy and to save the institution of the EC, decency demands that Shri Chawla should resign immediately and if he is not doing so, he will only be giving a message that free and fair elections cannot be conducted under him. Further, after retirement of Gopalswamy, if he is made the CEC, it will be all over for democrary.

MR. Jaitley's observation that CEC's decision as binding is yet another attempt by BJP to gain little space in public domain. But one would expect everybody to remember that it is occassions like this when President is expected to exercise her far sight with regard to core values of constitutionalism as enshrined in the constitution and political acumen and contribute to smooth operation of our democracy and it's operation. In this she would do well to be advised by leading independent experts and supreme court. It is test of her statesmanship. Politicians across the board should refrain from commenting according to political convinience.

CONGRESS IS LOOKING LIKE CONTESTING A LOOSING FIGHT. HE IS FIGHTING THE THE CASE OF CHAWALA WITH A VIEW THAT WHEN THE FACTS ARE AGAINST THE ACCUSED CHAWLA ARGUE THE LAW ITSELF. EXPRESS BUZZ HAVE RIGHTLY ADVOCATED IN HIS ARTICLE TODAY THAT CHAWLA IS A WRONG BIASED MAN FOR THE RIGHT POST OF CHIEF ELECTION COMMISION. THIS POST OF HIGH INPORTANCE SHOULD BE ACCUPIED BY HIGH MORAL AND IMPARTIAL PEOPLE OF GREAT ADMIRATION AMONG PEOPLE OF INDIA BUT NOT BY CHAWLA WHOSE LOYALITY TOWOARDS A PARTICULAR PARTY IS NOT A SECRET TO ANYBODY.

BJP likes Jaitley to replace Chawla at this juncture..should we do it ???

The seed for this issue was sown by the Congress Party and the consequences are being reaped by the Country now. If a God fearing, upright person like the present CEC has been forced to write to the President now, it reveals how incorrigible the person concerned is. The most honourable he can do now is to quit with grace

Gopalaswami was appointed by then BJP governemnt. This man is due to retire in one month. He is looking for some position in BJP, and may be he already has one. So what he is doing is just try to appease his Masters, the BJP. So, I think, it is high time that the CEC should take leave for next one month and then gracefully retire.

The categorical statement of Mr Arun Jaitley is clear enough, that since there are allegations of bias in favour of the ruling party, the recommendation of the CEC to remove Mr Chawla as an EC is binding on the govt. The govt. has no option but to accept the reco and remove Mr Chawla since the beneficiary of bias is the govt. The Constitutional authority under the circumstances vests with the CEC and the govt. cannot reject or keep quiet over the reco.

Like Caesar's wife, members of the Election Commission of India must remain above suspicion. When compared with Mr N Gopalaswami's service records, Mr Navin Chawla character and conduct in his official capacity leave much to be desired. It is a disgrace to the democratic institution if men like Mr Navin Chawla are allowed to functiont.Mr Navin Chawla will take the spades to push democracy into fathomless perdition if allowed to continue. Remove him and save democracy.

The people have a right to know the reasons behind the CEC's recommendation to remove Chawla. All political parties are biased and the congress beats them all!

Better reove Chawla. His impartiality is doubtful. Election should have been held before Sri Gopalswamy retires

Gopalaswamy must quit on health grounds, his head seems split in half in the picture. Perhaps one of the BJP sena can recruit him as they always need sick people. Navin Chawla must stay, for the mental disruption of people like Mr. Indian on this board. He might develope few good nonnections after severe disruption of the brain.

chawla is no angle and CEC NO SAINT.

So many judgements and so litle information. I have yet to see what arguments have been provided by the CEC in making this recommendations. Clearly, it cannot be on the basis of BJP's complaint alone. It is the expected that the CEC must have investigated the matter thoroughly before making his recommendation. And the debate should be based on the logic anf validity of those arguments rather than our prejudices - one way or the other. This is a very serious matter and one that could be setting a precedent - so for the sake of our democracry we must be discussing this in a neutral language - Party A has complained of EC bais towards Party B .. There may well be a sitiation tomorrow where Congress and BJP are on other ends of the spectrum and as such the course we ake now will become the pretext for all fuure situations.The EC, Army, Media and the Supreme Court are a few instutions which have made us a truly democraic country and seperates us from the likes of Pakistan .

Navin Chawla was appointed by the wily Congress only because he is a biased man.. and it was in line with Sonia's christianisation agenda (Navin is a supporter of christians; probably, a crypto-christian himself).. and Congress is known to play havoc with people mandates, so they have thrown the high office of EC into the mire, by appointed pliable persons like Navin Chawla, to hijack the entire election next time... It is a conspiracy against the expected people's verdict, and so Congress and Navin Chawla -both must be defeated immediately...

Traditionally congress have always had stooges in the election commission. Before the advent of Seshan,the CEC was like a DCC president receiving orders from the Nehrus and fake gandhis.Take the example of M.S. Gill. He was rewarded by congress after he quit as EC.Later he had the cheek to advise gold medalist Bhindra to ignore Advani.It clearly shows where the loyalities were when he was in office.Chawla is definitely a black sheep.

I suggest both should go, cause the institute is much bigger than these two individuals, and we cannot allow our institutes to run on political patronage.