Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, May 3: Even as the victorious West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee said she would approach the court over the Election Commission’s flip-flop on the Nandigram election results, the Supreme Court on Monday told the “hurt” ECI that media could not be stopped from reporting oral remarks made by judges during a court hearing.
The apex court while hearing a ECI petition against the Madras High Court which held it “singularly responsible” for the current Covid spurt in the country and suggested trying it for “murder charges, said the honest and full reportage of these comments give the public an insight into whether judges are genuinely applying their minds to resolve their crisis.
A day after leading Trinamool Congress to a historic victory in West Bengal, Banerjee pointing out the ECI’s “suspicious behavior” vowed to move court over the Nandigram result where she lost to her former protégé-turned-rival Suvendu Adhikari.
“How come the Election Commission reversed the Nandigram result after formally announcing it? We will move court,” said a miffed Banerjee.
Throughout Sunday, the contest in Nandigram, the most high-profile of the election, kept changing with the two rivals taking lead over each other and slipping back every now and then. It was initially reported that Banerjee had won by a margin of 1,200 votes, but the returning officer subsequently announced Adhikari’s victory by 1,956 votes.
After the returning officer turned down its plea for an immediate recounting of the votes polled in Nandigram, the TMC wrote to the Chief Election Officer asking him to reconsider it.
“I received an SMS from someone wherein returning officer of Nandigram has written to someone if he allows recounting then his life would be under threat. For four hours server was down, the Governor also congratulated me. Suddenly everything changed,” she complained.
Reports received from Nandigram said a large number of local voters also disagreed with the final outcome and demanded Adhkari to support a re-count.
Soon after the Madras High Court’s strong observations against the ECI, the troubled election watchdog had approached the HC to take back its words and restrain the media from reporting the comments as FIRs for murder were registered against the poll body officials. But the HC had, on April 30, refused to budge, saying there were more pressing issues at hand.
“We cannot expect the media not to report dialogues. Oral observations are as important as orders… Unfolding of process of judicial thinking is equally of interest to the public,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud addressed the ECI, represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi.
Justice Chandrachud flanked by Justice M.R. Shah on the Bench described the “media as a powerful watchdog”.
“Public interest is not limited to judgments, but also the raising of questions in a court hearing, the dialogue between the Bar and the Bench… All of these show the public whether there was a genuine application of mind by judges… Had I been in the Bar, I would be very worried if judges don’t ask questions,” Justice Chandrachud said.
The Bench said the ECI’s prayer to stop media from reporting the comments from the Bench was simply “far-fetched”.
“We cannot say that the media cannot report the contents of the discussions in a court of law. Discussions in a court of law are of equal public interest, and I would put it in the same pedestal as the final order. Discussion in the court is a dialogue between the Bar and the Bench… We wish that media should report fully what is happening in court. It brings a sense of accountability. Media reporting would also show that we are dispensing our duties fully,” Justice Chandrachud said.
When Dwivedi complained that the HC should not have accused another constitutional authority like the ECI of “murder”, Justice Chandrachud said judges were humans too. Some come reticent and other garrulous. Their comments may be borne out of frustration, but were certainly made for the cause of larger public interest.
“We don’t want to demoralise the HCs. They are vital pillars of the judicial process… HC judges are doing tremendous work, burning the midnight oil, they are overwhelmed. They know what’s happening on the ground. It is bound to affect your psyche,” Justice Chandrachud said.
Justice Shah said the ECI should take oral observations of judges in the right spirit. Judges do not follow a prepared script during a hearing.
“Sometimes they are frustrated, they are angered. You should accept it in the right spirit. They are also human beings… It is a free,” Justices Chandrachud and Shah both said.
“It’s a free-flowing conversation. We respect the ECI, don’t take it otherwise. This is not to belittle because ultimately democracy survives on the faith in the institutions… EC is an important pillar, but sometimes in dialogue, sometimes things are expressed,” Justice Chandrachud explained.
Justice Chandrachud also pacified the poll body saying the apex court would write a “balanced order”.
Meanwhile, the deputy leader of the Congress in the Rajya Sabha, Anand Sharma, on Monday lashed out at the ECI for being ‘partisan’ and asserted that present poll body should be disbanded as it allegedly “betrayed the trust of voters”.
He also suggested that the Supreme Court should decide the criteria for a persona to qualify for the position of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioner (EC).
“The present Election Commission should be disbanded and actions of its members probed. The EC has disgraced itself and voters trust betrayed. A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court should decide on the composition, qualifying criteria for the appointment of CEC and EC’s and firm guidelines for the conduct of free and fair elections as per the Constitution,” Sharma said in a statement, a day after results of Assembly elections to four States and one Union Territory came out.
The senior Congress leader said the conduct of the EC during the recent elections has raised ‘serious concerns’ and accused the Commission of violating its Constitutional mandate under Article 324 to conduct free and fair polls.
“Blatantly partisan, its actions in Bengal were shocking and condemnable. There have been instances where it acted as a willing accomplice of the BJP,” he alleged.
Sharma said the EC must be held accountable for “fuelling” the surge in COVID cases and increasing sufferings of the people by allowing unrestricted mass rallies and violating COVID protocols.