One is surprised to learn that issues of such great import are dealt with in the ECI by oral discussions. Whether a senior personage has violated the MCC, what punishment is called for, a censure, advisory, a temporary ban on campaigning, these are issues of import, will also become part of that person’s record of public service. The decision must be arrived at by a speaking order, one which creates a permanent record of how the decision was arrived at; a part of the institutional memory that can guide future incumbents. Had that been done, an EC who did not agree with the majority view would have recorded his note of dissent. What has been happening is wrong at so many levels. No written records being created, a majority prevailing over a member whose reasoning may in fact be more impeccable, likely to be upheld if a judicial review was possible. Not letting the public know that the ECI’s decision is not unanimous, the views of an equal member have been overruled, either due to superior wisdom or brute majority. A lot of introspection is required.
The press conference held by four SC judges last year was a defining moment in the institution’s history, a day most Indians would normally not have wished not to see in their lifetimes. Very difficult to agree with the broad thrust of this column. Far from bringing disrepute, it gave citizens assurance that there was still some flame in the embers. Equally so far the ECI, which is now becoming a cartoonist’s delight. The manner in which the lady employee’s complaint has been dealt with does not, with respect, inspire any sort of confidence.
One is surprised to learn that issues of such great import are dealt with in the ECI by oral discussions. Whether a senior personage has violated the MCC, what punishment is called for, a censure, advisory, a temporary ban on campaigning, these are issues of import, will also become part of that person’s record of public service. The decision must be arrived at by a speaking order, one which creates a permanent record of how the decision was arrived at; a part of the institutional memory that can guide future incumbents. Had that been done, an EC who did not agree with the majority view would have recorded his note of dissent. What has been happening is wrong at so many levels. No written records being created, a majority prevailing over a member whose reasoning may in fact be more impeccable, likely to be upheld if a judicial review was possible. Not letting the public know that the ECI’s decision is not unanimous, the views of an equal member have been overruled, either due to superior wisdom or brute majority. A lot of introspection is required.
The press conference held by four SC judges last year was a defining moment in the institution’s history, a day most Indians would normally not have wished not to see in their lifetimes. Very difficult to agree with the broad thrust of this column. Far from bringing disrepute, it gave citizens assurance that there was still some flame in the embers. Equally so far the ECI, which is now becoming a cartoonist’s delight. The manner in which the lady employee’s complaint has been dealt with does not, with respect, inspire any sort of confidence.