Covid-19 management not our prerogative, EC tells SC | India News

NEW DELHI: The Election Fee, rattled over the sturdy excessive court docket observations associated to conducting of simply concluded meeting elections, informed the Supreme Courtroom on Monday that Covid-19 administration was not its prerogative and it doesn’t run the governance of the state.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah was informed by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, showing for the EC, that remarks of homicide expenses made by the Madras Excessive Courtroom in opposition to the Constitutional physique have been unwarranted and such conclusive remarks shouldn’t have been made with out listening to the ballot panel.
“Election fee shouldn’t be operating the governance of the State. We solely concern tips and directives. We do not have CRPF or every other drive with us to test the individuals in rally. State Catastrophe Administration Authority has to concern orders for limiting the individuals. There’s a presumption that EC has duty for all this. We have now nothing to do with Covid administration,” he stated.
The excessive court docket had on April 26 castigated the EC for the surge in Covid-19 circumstances through the second wave of the pandemic, holding it “singularly” answerable for the unfold of the viral illness, known as it the “essentially the most irresponsible establishment” and even stated its officers could also be booked beneath homicide expenses.
The bench informed Dwivedi that the ballot panel ought to take the observations of the excessive court docket in the proper spirit and stated, “No one is criticising anyone. You’ve got accomplished a very good job. Election Fee is a seasoned Constitutional physique, entrusted with the duty to make sure free and honest election within the nation. It shouldn’t be rattled by the observations made”.
It assured the ballot panel that the excessive court docket’s remarks weren’t meant to “run down” a Constitutional physique however could have been made “momentarily” within the circulation of discussions and that is why it was not within the judicial order.
Dwivedi stated the EC was not objecting to the discussions and observations made by the excessive courts however they must be within the context of matter at hand and there shouldn’t be any off-the-cuff remarks.
He stated that polling in Tamil Nadu was held on April 6, the PIL was filed on April 19 and the order was handed by the excessive court docket on April 26.
The bench stated: “Some observations are made in bigger public curiosity. Generally it’s anguish and generally they’re made to make an individual do the work, he’s required to do…some judges are reticent and a few judges are verbose”.
The highest court docket stated that it is reasoned order would keep in mind Election Fee’s submission that “wanton expenses” levelled in opposition to it by the Madras Excessive Courtroom have been unwarranted and would attempt to strike a stability between two Constitutional our bodies.
The bench made it clear that it might neither restrain the media from reporting oral observations made throughout proceedings in public curiosity, nor demoralise excessive courts – “very important pillars of democracy” – by asking them to chorus from elevating questions.
It termed as “too far-fetched” the ballot panel’s plea of restraining media from reporting remarks made in court docket proceedings.
The highest court docket reserved its verdict and stated that it’s going to give a reasoned order because the attraction of the ballot panel in opposition to Madras Excessive Courtroom order raises bigger concern.
Scroll to Top