Reference to Constitutional Assembly debates and constitutional provisions is necessary to understand the issues involved in the current Gopalaswami-Navin Chawla controversy. Part XV of the Constitution was expressly enacted to entrust the responsibility of holding free and fair elections to an independent Election Commission. Its paramount objective was to insulate the commission from pressures from the executive of the day and to ensure its independence.

This objective is subserved by two provisos to Article 324(5). The first proviso stipulates that CEC shall not be removed except by the process of impeachment as in the case of a high court or a Supreme Court judge. The second proviso states that the “Election Commissioner or Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.” The words are not “except on the advice of the President”, which means advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore the continuance in office or removal of an election commissioner or a regional election commissioner cannot be decided by the executive government.

Dr Ambedkar’s statement in the Constituent Assembly on June 16, 1949 on this subject is decisive. He inter alia stated that “in the matter of removal of the other Commissioners [Election Commissioners], the President can only act on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner” and that was “a very important limitation” on the president’s power. Thus it is clear that it is the CEC alone who is competent to recommend the removal of an EC. Besides the CEC prima facie would be the best judge to appraise the behaviour and conduct of an EC within the four walls of the Commission.

... contd.