Madras HC censure on Covid polls: Dissenting EC was eager to place views in affidavit, denied

So sharp was the distinction in opinion between the 2 Election Commissioners over the response to the censure by the Madras High Court that the dissenting EC needed to place his views on document in a separate affidavit, The Indian Express has realized.
However, the Election Commission rejected his suggestion and didn’t file his affidavit with the Madras High Court. The dissenting EC’s subsequent request to connect his separate affidavit to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed within the Supreme Court towards the Madras High Court’s “murder-charges” comment was additionally ignored.
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 authorized by the Commission.
One of the commissioners, it’s realized, didn’t fully agree with the affidavit’s contents in Madras HC and the SLP within the SC.
Reacting to the report on Wednesday, the EC issued an announcement that the “Commission always has appropriate deliberations before any decisions are taken.”
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.
According to Section 10 of The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, all enterprise of the EC “shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously”.
This provision states that in case the “Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, such matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority”.
However, the regulation is ambiguous on who will prevail in case of distinction of opinion when there are solely two commissioners within the EC as is the case now. Hence, it’s not clear if the affidavit and SLP authorized by solely one of many two ECs may be taken to symbolize the view of the fee or not.

The disagreement inside the fee stems from the Madras High Court’s robust observations on April 26 towards 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 expenses ought to be imposed on the panel for being “the only institution responsible for the situation that we are in today”.
The EC went again to the Madras High Court with a plea in search of instructions to be issued to the media to restrict their stories to observations recorded in orders or judgments and chorus from reporting oral statements made throughout court docket proceedings because the remarks had brought on grave prejudice. The HC didn’t entertain the plea.
The ballot watchdog finally went to the apex court docket final week towards the Madras HC’s remarks. In its SLP, the EC stated that the oral feedback made by judges throughout a listening to have been reported because the “views of the Court”, which quantities to “undermining the Constitutional authority of the Hon’ble Court” as some see the court docket as “exceeding the boundaries of judicial propriety.”

Hearing the matter Monday, the apex court docket stated that the observations made by judges whereas listening to circumstances are within the “larger public interest” and the media can’t be stopped from reporting them.
Justice M R Shah remarked that “sometimes when something is observed, it is for the larger public interest. They (judges) are also human beings. Sometimes they are frustrated, angered.” Asking the Commission to take it within the “right spirit”, he added that “your subsequent decisions after the remarks, matter”. The SC’s order on this matter is predicted Thursday.
On Wednesday, the EC stated it’s “sincerely committed to its faith in free media.” “The Commission as a whole and each one of its members recognise the positive role played by media in the conduct of all elections in the past and present and in strengthening electoral democracy in the country. The Election Commission was unanimous that before Hon’ble Supreme Court there should not be any prayer for restriction on media reporting,” the ballot panel stated.