Date:28/03/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/03/28/stories/2006032818120500.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

High Court reserves order on transfer of Commissioner

Special Correspondent

Bench poses many questions to both parties

R. Nataraj

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court, hearing a batch of petitions in connection with the Election Commission's request to the State Government to transfer the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police, shot a flurry of questions to both sides before reserving its orders on Monday.

While asking the Government side why it was resisting the transfer of R. Nataraj alone, after transferring out hundreds of others in deference to the Commission's fiat, the Bench sought to know from others as to what authority the Commission possessed to act against officials even before the elections were notified.

The Bench, comprising Justice Prafulla Kumar Misra and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, also sought to know what would happen if the State Government did not obey the directions. When Advocate-General N.R. Chandran replied that the Government did not know how the Commission would proceed further, the Bench observed: "At least to prevent harm to the official, you can obey the order." Mr. Chandran then said the Government obeyed the earlier orders as they were general in nature and not aimed at any individual.

The Bench also questioned the recent Central Government announcement hiking three per cent Dearness Allowance for its entire staff. It asked: "Is it not a ploy to influence Central employees in the five States going to [the] polls?"

G. Rajagopal, senior counsel for the Election Commission, winding up his submissions, said the panel wanted a different official as Greater Chennai Commissioner as it apprehended that otherwise it could not exercise "meaningful control" over officials during elections. The Commission was entitled to seek the appointment of an official of its choice. "The Government cannot force anybody on the Commission."

Earlier, G. Rajendran, counsel for one of the intervening petitioners, said the Election Commission's order needed to be enforced, as the Government had not attributed any mala fide or personal bias to the impugned direction.

The Home Secretary, in his petition, had conceded that the model code of conduct came into effect from 6.30 p.m. on March 1. The period between announcement and notification of elections was the "preliminary stage" of the process. R. Viduthalai, senior counsel for Union Minister A. Raja, said any legislation that encroached upon the plenary powers of the Election Commission had to be held bad and added that poll notification had no particular significance.