The Election Commission is a private enterprise owned, controlled, supervised, directed and ‘politically’ manipulated by Sonia Gandhi

Election Commission - A star chamber of India?

V SUNDARAM

Mon, 20 Apr, 2009 , 03:25 PM

At last the Sonia cat is out of the bag. As I have observed several times in these columns during the last four years, the Election Commission has again shown that it is a private enterprise owned, controlled, supervised, directed and ‘politically’ manipulated by Sonia Gandhi.

The Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, who would be demitting office today (Monday, 20 April 2009), is reported to have taken the view that there was need for further enquiry to go into a complaint against Sonia Gandhi receiving the ‘Order of Leopold’, the second highest civilian award in Belgium during her visit there in November, 2006. This reasonable stand taken by an upright civil servant with unquestioned and unimpeachable integrity like N Gopalaswami, has been overruled by the Election Commission (EC) by a majority opinion. By a 2-1 vote, Election Commissioners Navin Chawla and SY Quraishi have overturned Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami’s view that an enquiry is necessary to go into the complaint against Sonia. These two Election Commissioners–known and planted political representatives of Sonia Gandhi and her Congress Party in the Election Commission--are understood to have recommended that the enquiry against Sonia Gandhi was complete and no further action was called for. Thus a divided Election Commission has sent to the President its politically loaded opinion rooted in the carcass of law (devoid of the spirit of law) on whether Congress President Sonia Gandhi should be disqualified as a Member of Parliament for receiving a foreign award, The EC’s view has been sent to President Pratibha Patil for her final decision.

N Gopalaswami has refused to divulge the stand taken by him or the two Commissioners but confirmed the issue was before the President. He has stated: ‘I do not want to say anything on this because this is a case on which the decision will be taken by the President. So until the decision is taken, there can be no discussion on this.’ Asked as to at what stage the case was now, Gopalaswami said, ’The point is that the President has not taken a decision yet. The matter will be finally decided at the appropriate ­time.’

The controversy regarding the disqualification of Sonia Gandhi arose out of a petition filed by Rajan, a public spirited lawyer from Kochi, who had sought the disqualification of Sonia under Article 102(1) (d) of the Constitution for accepting the 2nd highest Belgian honour from the hands of the Belgian King. This Article clearly states that anybody who owes allegiance to the Constitution of another country should be disqualified from the membership of Parliament. In his petition to the President of India and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, he had stated that he found to his shock, and dismay, that the Order of Leopold was no ordinary paper but a special title that demanded ‘devotion’ and ‘loyalty’ to the King and the State of Belgium in return from the person honoured with the title. By accepting this award, Sonia Gandhi, as a sitting MP, had violated Article 102(1) (d) of the Constitution, she had compromised with her allegiance and loyalty to India and therefore stood disqualified to function as a Member of Parliament.Thus Rajan concluded that Sonia Gandhi accepting this award amounted to her owing her allegiance to the Constitution of Belgium and not India. Fortunately for our country, the President of India at that time was Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, a man of great integrity imbued with a sense of high nationalism founded on his lofty patriotism, in stark contrast with his Sonia-servile successor in that high office with dubious if not criminal credentials. Dr Kalam promptly sent the complaint of Rajan to the Election Commission for careful consideration in June 2007. Taking note of the complaint Petition of Rajan forwarded to the Election Commission, the Election Commission by a majority of 2:1 had decided to issue a notice to the Congress President Sonia Gandhi asking her as to why she should not be disqualified from acting as a Member of Parliament under Article 102 (1) of the Constitution for her having accepted the Order of Leopold from the King of Belgium. On this aspect of the issue, Gopalaswami and Navin Chawla were on one side and S Y Quraishi was opposed to this step. On the other hand, Commissioners Chawla and Quraishi agreed on seeking further details from the Ministry of External Affairs just to delay the matter, while the CEC Gopalaswami was opposed to this.

I had clearly understood even at that time that it was a sham drama cleverly enacted by both Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi. This observation of mine can stand the strictest and impartial judicial scrutiny in any Honourable Court of Law in all the civilized countries of the world, excepting, perhaps Sonia’s India. In these very columns on 15 February, 2008, in an Article titled ‘Is this a ‘stale’ or ‘not so stale’ case, please!” I had observed as follows:

‘It is a well-known public fact that both Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi owe their positions as Election Commissioners to Sonia Gandhi and the Congress Party. Both of them take special pride in functioning as ‘political agents’ of Sonia Gandhi within the Election Commission. Though the Former President of India Dr. Abdul Kalam forwarded the petition of Rajan to the Election Commission as early as in June 2007, yet the Chief Election Commissioner could do nothing because Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi, owing their total allegiance to Sonia Gandhi and her family, checkmated Chief Election Commissioner Gopal Swamy for nearly 7 months. Navin Chawla seems to be under the mistaken impression that he can cleverly mislead the country by standing alongside Gopal Swamy in the matter of issue of notice to Sonia Gandhi on the Order of Leopold issue and alongside S Y Quraishi on the other aspect of reference to the Ministry of External Affairs. Navin Chawla knows full well that if he does not support Gopal Swamy on this aspect of the issue, then by his own abstention he would be forfeiting his claim to succeed Gopal Swamy as Chief Election Commissioner. On the other aspect of referral to the Ministry of External Affairs, both Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi are colluding as greyhounds together to hunt down Gopal Swamy. Both these political hunters know that the Ministry of External Affairs under its ever-effeminate Minister Pranab Mukherjee will be waiting in combat-readiness to give a clean chit to Sonia Gandhi.’

My view has also more or less been endorsed by P Rajan, the bold Advocate from Kochi, who had sent a petition to the President of India seeking the disqualification of Sonia Gandhi under Article 102 (1) of the Indian Constitution. Speaking to the press yesterday he has rightly said: ‘I think the EC’s plan was to form a common opinion and reject the demand to disqualify Sonia Gandhi after the new Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) assumes office.’

Now to come to the stand of Gopalaswami that a further probe into the award of Order of Leopold to Sonia Gandhi is necessary in the larger national interest. The King of Belgium, His Majesty Albert II, paid a ten-day visit to India from 3 November 2008. His Majesty had meetings with President Pratibha Patil and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. India and Belgium share a long history of business relationship, Belgium is an important trading partner for India and is one of the top 5 trading partners in the European Union. Belgium is the third largest trade partner of India in the EU with annual bilateral trade turnover exceeding US$8.6 billion with diamonds, gems and jewellery accounting for a sizable portion of the two-way trade.

The surging hawala trade between Belgium and India has increased manifold in geometric progression after the UPA Government came to power in May 2004. According to many reliable sources, close relations of top politicians in Delhi (enjoying all kinds of security including Z category security and diplomatic immunity) have been treating and visiting Surat as the chosen MECCA for their Hawala Operations in Diamond trade between Surat and Belgium. Against this background, the clinching observations of Dr Kalyanaraman become relevant: ‘An inquiry into Sonia receiving Order of Leopold, an award of shame in the name of a genocide culprit of Zaire, is immediately called for. How did Belgium become the third largest trade partner with India in 2008? Is it because of dredging contracts awarded for billions of rupees to Dredging International of Belgium and increased diamond trade resulting in stashing away illicit funds in tax havens nearby? Whether the infamous award is linked to new trade partnership should certainly be at the top of the agenda for the inquiry team. Yes, Gopalaswami is right. This calls for a high-level inquiry. The first order of business of the next Government is to order this inquiry and facilitate the return of Italian passport holders back to Luciana.’

The Election Commission today—filled with the chosen partisans of the Congress Party—is functioning like the STAR CHAMBER in British history. It was an English Court of Law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts. In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with biased, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, Star Chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges that were brought up in Star Chambers led to substantial reforms in English law in course of time. In India such reforms are out of the question.