The points that have been made in the criticism of the chief election commissioner’s recommendation of the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla include the following: the election commission is a body of equals, and the CEC is only one among equals; it is unfortunate that the CEC should have made such a recommendation about one of his own colleagues; he was wrong to make it suo motu, without a reference from the government; this raises doubts about his motivation and about his political leanings; and the timing of the recommendation, with an election in the offing, is inappropriate. These are examined below.

That the CEC is only one among equals is a questionable view on at least two grounds. First, the fact that the Constitution does not mandate but only enables the appointment of election commissioners, and that we can have, and did have for many years, an election commission with only the CEC, clearly places the CEC on a different footing from the ECs. Secondly, the fact that the Constitution has given to the CEC the power of making a recommendation for the removal of an election commissioner implies a clear difference between the CEC and the ECs. It is not clear how in the face of that provision anyone can hold that the CEC and the ECs are equals. It could indeed be argued that the CEC and the ECs ought to be given exactly the same kind of protection against arbitrary removal, but that is not what the Constitution says; a constitutional amendment would be needed to bring that about.

... contd.