tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post3783205310289036912..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: EC's removal: Search for clarityAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-1255073808813801162009-02-03T06:41:00.000+05:302009-02-03T06:41:00.000+05:30Desai's reasoning regarding why the CEC is not ent...Desai's <A HREF="http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/03/stories/2009020354970900.htm" REL="nofollow">reasoning</A> regarding why the CEC is not entitled to act <EM>suo motu </EM> seems dubious. He says 'Since the President is the appointing authority, the removal itself can only be by the President.' The inference is somewhat debatable even if the conclusion is correct. Then he says 'But the condition precedent to the removal of an EC is that he can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC on a petition addressed to the President. This would suggest that the CEC cannot act on his own and must await the reference through proper channels to be able to act on a complaint or petition seeking the removal of an EC.' Neither judges nor the CEC (nor for that matter the President) is removed in the same manner as his/her appointment. And yet, Desai seems to argue that if the process of appointment begins with the President, the process of removal also to be initiated likewise. Why should that be so? Nothing in the paragraph he quotes says that nor does it follow from anything written there. <BR/><BR/>Then he goes on to argue that this conclusion is borne out by a pragmatic approach because in future, small groups or even individual MPs (rather than the 205 in that instance) can petition for the EC's removal and 'It is difficult to see how the CEC can suo motu act on such complaints or petitions without awaiting a formal reference.' But this is not a number game - the number of people signing the petition is irrelevant to the strength of the case against him/her. The 'intelligible and cogent considerations' the SC referred to do not get any stronger simply because the number of MPs signing the petition is larger. On the contrary, from a pragmatic perspective, the CEC being associated with its day to day functioning is probably better placed to know about the workings of the organization and the conduct of its employees than the President and <I>suo motu</I> action, it could be argued, is a sensible approach as well. If an employee in any organization is found to be engaging in misconduct and the supervisor comes to know about it, does it make sense to wait till the problem is aggravated enough for outside customers to start complaining before action is taken against him/her?<BR/><BR/>VV, my concern about such complete transparency is that it may be difficult to run an organization like that. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any other instance of that nature.Dilip Raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294894305584371011noreply@blogger.com