Dissenting EC had supplied to stop; ballot physique contradicts itself on media gag

The dissenting Election Commissioner had supplied to resign as “punishment” if the Madras High Court (HC) so desired. This was among the many key factors the Commissioner had made in his affidavit, The Indian Express has discovered.
In his affidavit, he’s mentioned to have acknowledged that the court docket’s oral observations — on the Election Commission’s position in conducting elections throughout the second Covid wave — had demoralised the EC’s rank and file.

Urging the court docket to not punish the establishment however the person, he’s mentioned to have requested the court docket to withdraw its oral observations or maintain him personally accountable. For the latter, he supplied to take private duty and resign.
But this affidavit was rejected by the Election Commission and by no means filed with the HC nor hooked up with its Special Leave Petition within the Supreme Court in opposition to the Madras High Court’s “murder-charges” comment.
The dissenting Commissioner can also be mentioned to have advised his colleague that senior officers had not even cared to acknowledge his inputs and that he felt marginalised.
After Sunil Arora’s retirement as Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) on April 12, the three-member Commission has Sushil Chandra as CEC and Rajiv Kumar as Election Commissioner. The place of the third commissioner is vacant.
The Indian Express had first reported Wednesday that the ballot panel’s plea within the Madras High Court to gag the media from reporting oral observations of judges and its SLP within the high court docket weren’t unanimously accredited by the Commission.

So sharp was the distinction in opinion between the 2 commissioners on this matter that the dissenting member had needed to place his views on document in a separate affidavit.
On Wednesday, this newspaper had additionally reported that the dissenting Commissioner had individually suggested in opposition to calling for a gag on the media however his suggestions was ignored. Reacting to the report, the Commission issued an announcement saying that it was “unanimous that before Hon’ble Supreme Court there should not be any prayer for restriction on media reporting.”
However, the EC’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) contradicts this.

In the SLP, the Commission mentioned it was aggrieved by the oral observations of the High Court and in addition by the court docket not having addressed the deserves of its miscellaneous software. In the latter, the EC had, certainly, sought restrictions on media reporting the change between the decide and the attorneys in open court docket.
The Supreme Court’s order on Thursday, too, states that the Commission’s counsel mentioned in court docket that the EC was sad over the Madras HC not contemplating its miscellaneous software.
The disagreement throughout the Commission stems from the Madras High Court’s robust observations on April 26 in opposition to the EC for “not stopping political parties” from violating Covid protocols throughout their marketing campaign rallies final month. In its oral observations, the HC lamented that maybe homicide prices ought to be imposed on the panel for being “the only institution responsible for the situation that we are in today”.