NEW DELHI A day after the Union law ministry announced election commissioner Arun Goel’s resignation, Election Commission officials were at a loss about what caused the move, with three years left on the officer’s tenure and elevation to the position of chief election commissioner (CEC) due in 2025.

Five officials HT spoke to said Goel and CEC Rajiv Kumar had their share of differences, including on routine matters, though that did not explain Goel’s abrupt resignation. A key point of difference was over the poll body’s February 17, 2023 order on the allocation of the Shiv Sena’s party name and poll symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction on the basis of legislative majority, four officials told HT.

Read here: After Arun Goel’s exit, Centre likely to appoint two new election commissioners by March 15

In a unanimous order, the poll body relied on the majority principle first used by the EC in the Sadiq Ali case of 1971 and upheld by the Supreme Court subsequently. According to this principle, when there are factions in a political party, to allot the party name and symbol, the poll body must rely on checking for both legislative and organisational majority. In the Shiv Sena order, the poll body relied only on legislative majority, that is, it only considered how parliamentarians and state legislators chose between the Shinde or the Uddhav Thackeray faction.

Though the final order did not have a dissent note, three officials told HT that there was disagreement among the commissioners that was not publicised in the office. Goel is said to have wanted the precedent to be maintained and for the poll body to consider both organisational and legislative majority for the test of majority but the final order relied only on legislative majority.

The Shiv Sena order was used as a precedent in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) case last month. In the NCP order, the EC said it could not determine if elections to party posts had even been held. These two EC orders are the only ones to rely on legislative majority alone instead of both legislative and organisational majority.

“In the Sadiq Ali case and all subsequent cases, the EC examined both legislative and organisational majority. In the Shiv Sena case, it was probably the first time that the EC did not rely on organisational majority as it found that were no organisational elections and all office-bearers were nominated by the president of the party. That order seemed logical to me,” former chief election commissioner SY Quraishi said.

The Uddhav Thackeray faction filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging the EC order. The EC filed a 10-page counter-affidavit on March 14, 2023, arguing that since the February 17 order was passed in EC’s quasi-judicial capacity, and not its administrative capacity, the EC had become functus officio in this case, that is, it had performed its official function. It argued that there was precedent for quasi-judicial bodies to not have to appear in court if their orders were challenged.

Goel was not kept in the loop about this counter-affidavit, two officials told HT. The document was sent to the EC’s advocate on record without being signed by Anup Chandra Pandey (who retired on February 15) or Goel. The deputy election commissioner in charge had sent the counter affidavit to Kumar directly for approval instead of first sending it to Goel and Pandey. Goel summoned the DEC in charge of the counter-affidavit and also demanded the file for inspection. Two officials told HT that the original file had not been found and the legal department instead had to start a “part file”.

Three officials said the dissent was not recorded in any file. Two of them said routine disagreements between Goel and Kumar were never included in any file notings or orders.

Quraishi said this is a common practice. “We had decided that even if there is internal disagreement, it must be sorted within the four walls of the commission’s meeting room. Any difference of opinion among the commissioners was not to be made public because of the controversy it could generate. We used to meet for half an hour alone before the officers were called in,” he said.

Read here: Why did Arun Goel resign as election commissioner? What happens next?

Other points of difference, officials said, included Goel’s view that renovation of parts of the EC’s headquarters, the Nirvachan Sadan, were a waste of taxpayers’ money, and his discomfort over “VIP culture” in the poll body manifested in the “kingly” treatment given to EC officials during their tours to polling states. He had also raised concerns over how state election officials were not following the due process for search and seizure by seizing goods before the imposition of the model code of conduct.

While much has been made of Goel skipping the press conference in Kolkata on March 5, all five officials HT spoke to said nothing happened there that could have caused him to resign. “In the meetings with political parties and officers, there was no friction between the CEC and EC. Both were supportive of each other,” one of the officials said, a view corroborated by the others. His absence at the conference was attributed to health reasons.