Split EC verdicts should've been made public, say ex-CECs

NEW DELHI: With election commissioner Ashok Lavasa recording a dissenting view on files relating to five complaints where the EC gave a clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah, the 2:1 split in opinion should have been made public, four former chief election commissioners (CECs) told TOI.


While three of the ex-CECs concurred that the grounds for rejecting the complaints along with relevant provisions of the model code or advisories should have been communicated to the complainant, the fourth opined that it might not be practical to always do so, especially where no prima facie violation is made out. This could be because of paucity of time and preoccupation with conduct of

elections

. "The complainant can always write back to the commission insisting to know the grounds. The EC must then share these details as recorded on the file," the former CEC said.

The EC, however, maintains that in all model code cases where no prime facie violation is found, even if one of the commissioners disagrees on this, only the decision is communicated.

What happens in any meeting of the commission preceding the decision, "is its internal matter," senior deputy election commissioner Sandeep Saxena said at a media briefing on the Phase V of polling here on Monday.

Another EC official, however, told TOI on condition of anonymity that it is an established practice that a decision of the Commission, when by 2:1 majority, must be communicated as such. In fact, Lavasa is said to have raised this even before the complaints against Modi and Shah came up. On not finding any mention of dissent in EC's order on a complaint against BJP leader

Gulab Chand Kataria

, Lavasa is said to have objected to the departure from "established practice". As per a commission official, withholding the fact in the final order that the decision was not unanimous is against the principle of transparency that an institution like EC is duty-bound to uphold.

Former CEC Nasim Zaidi, while refusing to comment on developments regarding specific matters, said: "As per established practice, EC records its speaking order with cogent analysis, reasons, logic on the file based on complaint, reply of the notice issued by it, relevant material available on the file and vis-a-vis the law, model code, past precedents and rulings, circulars and advisories. Speed and time is the essence of disposing of

MCC

matters."

He said EC may unanimously or by majority hold whether violation of MCC has taken place. "The dissenting view of an election commissioner, if any, is also recorded on the file. The unanimous speaking order or majority order is communicated to the complainant by secretary of the commission and after service put up on website. In the interest of transparency, a core value of EC, dissenting view if any should also be available to people to know," he said.

Former CEC SY Quraishi, when reached by TOI, said while in some cases where disagreements precede an EC decision, the dissenting member may agree to go with the majority view. But if the complaints relate to senior leaders and where the dissenting view is recorded on file, the same cannot be ignored.

"In such cases, in the interest of transparency and to bring forth the independence that goes into decisions, the 2:1 decision should be made public as it restores faith of the people in the institution," he said.