The objection to a suo motu recommendation has no force. The Constitution merely says that an EC cannot be removed except on a recommendation by the CEC. It does not say that the CEC can make such a recommendation only on a reference from the government. That may be desirable, but there is no constitutional basis for such a view.

The argument that it was improper or in bad taste to make such a recommendation against a colleague is strange. It is precisely about a colleague that the CEC is constitutionally empowered to make that recommendation. It is indeed unfortunate that there should be dissension within the commission. However, it has been there for a long time. The CEC’s action is the outcome of the long-standing dissension and not the cause.

The controversy regarding Chawla is not a new one, nor is it entirely a Congress-BJP question. When Chawla was appointed EC, many in the country were dismayed. Some even wrote to the president of India on the subject. The BJP petitioned the Supreme Court, but withdrew its petition when the CEC submitted an affidavit that it was within his power to make a recommendation for the removal of an EC. That put the matter out of the court and on hold, and gradually it faded from public memory. The CEC’s present action is merely the delayed outcome of that old story.

The question of timing remains. The CEC, having stated in his affidavit before the Supreme Court that he had the power of making a recommendation for the removal of an EC, could have exercised it promptly either positively to make a recommendation for Chawla’s removal or negatively to say that he did not find grounds to do so. Doubtless he needed time to examine the matter, considering the serious nature of the decision, but the fact that the recommendation has been made now, with a parliamentary election due shortly, has made many commentators criticise it as untimely.

... contd.