EC Navin Chawla allegedly ran GITMO style prison camps during emergency

New details are emerging about the Election Commission fiasco. 

Chawla was also found to have exercised 'extra-statutory control in jail matters', including 'the treatment of detenues'. Not confining himself to dictating to his boss as to the persons to be arrested, he also prescribed how they were to be treated in prison. For instance, he was for constructing special cells with asbestos roofs to 'bake' certain prisoners. Kishan Chand pathetically admitted to Justice Shah that he was not a free agent and Chawla used to receive instructions directly from Sanjay Gandhi and he (Kishan Chand) came into the picture only to the extent that he was required to fulfill some technical formalities. [link]

So, not only did this man allegedly run GITMO style prisons, he also allegedly subjected political prisoners to asbestos boarding. 

We only ask, where are the human rights activists? We need to understand this a little better. If these allegations are true (there is also an Italian medal involved, please read the above article in full), then it is even worse than the GITMO situation. At least in GITMO the detainees are allegedly non-state actors. Here, we have the garden variety political dissenters.

We need our intellectuals to take a stand right now. We can not let our 50-50 democracy to undergo any further erosion. 

We also watched an interview by former editor of The Hindu, Shri N. Ram:

Reporter: Mr. N Ram, firstly he is the first among equals, Mr Gopalaswamy [CEC]. Does he have the powers in him to suggest something like this to the president directly bypassing the government?

N. Ram: You are absolutely right about the first among equals, the supreme court has made it clear. Does he have the power? No. If you read here under part 15 of the constitution under elections ... talking about  superintendence direction and control of elections.. to be vested ...that means high constitutional standing for the election commission. Removal comes in. [reads from the Constitution] "The Chief Election Commissioner, can not be removed except through impeachment", in exactly the way Supreme Court judges are protected and it also.. there are safeguards. As for the other election commissioners .. it is not provided.. impeachment is not provided.. I think the constitution [inaudible] amended on that..it is made clear [reads again] "that they shall not be remove from  office except on the recommendation of the  chief election commissioner". Now its elementary that only the appointing authority can seek removal and this is  safeguard to protect the independence of the Election Commission, as you would want to protect the independence of the judiciary. and this is made clear also in the judicial interpretation of ...in the Seshan case in 1995 .. TN Seshan Chief Election Commissioner of India vs. Union of India in 1995.... please look it up. They made it clear, the CEC is not an oppressive power. this is only meant to be .. to protect, to safeguard the independence of the Election Commission. Therefore without a formal reference, if you suo motu, of your own bat, seek removal, then where is the independence, where is the equality? [link] [transcript ours]

It is hard to argue with something like this. Mr. N. Ram contradicts himself, makes irrelevant points, argues with his own points and then ends with a question he couldn't possibly answer himself. It makes no sense. If the EC is supposed to be independent, what is N. Ram doing trying to wrestle with it? If the CEC is indeed the first among equals, where is the question of equality?

Let's try this again:

Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

This is the only place in the whole constitution which talks about removal of ECs other than the CEC. If you take the exact inverse of this statement, it reads like:

Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner can be removed from office only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

Let's focus on the words "except" and "recommendation".

If the phrase did not carry the "except", a whole slew of interpretations would be possible. The word "except" really changes the whole thing.  If we accept the secular interpretation that the founders never intended the CEC to be able to intiate proceedings for the removal of an EC, we get into a deadlock situation. Right now, Congress has no reason to seek removal of Chawla. If the CEC can not initiate the process, who else possibly can? The only route open to the opposition is litigation. So, the EC has gone baddy, the CEC totally wants him gone, but he is waiting with bated breath for the Government to seek removal of the EC. What's the CEC to do? 

CEC: Hey, look I have got my recommendation, like, totally ready, could you please seek the EC's removal?

Congress: Sure!

If the Election commission is designed to be independent, it is absurd to think that the Government can actually seek the removal of an EC. As a matter of fact, "Government" has no meaning with respect to the Election Commission. After appointing the members through constitutionally binding process, the Government must not seek to influence the EC. Only political parties can submit complaints. 

This is really a simple issue, if only people stopped confusing the Government with the Congress party. We understand, they have ruled the country for so long, it is hard to separate the two.