NEW DELHI, Oct. 23 -- Two Election Commissioners had separately complained to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan about the conduct of a senior Election Commission official, alleging that he revised work allocations without prior consultation or approval, according to documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to Somanathan on July 29, 2026, seeking action against Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg over an administrative order that redistributed responsibilities among senior officers of the poll body. However, the Cabinet Secretariat decided against initiating action, observing that the complaints had been submitted by the Commissioners in their individual capacities and did not constitute a formal communication from the Election Commission as a whole.
According to the RTI documents, Garg was assigned additional charge of the Election Commission's Administration Division while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave between July 27 and August 9. On July 28, shortly after assuming the additional responsibility, Garg issued an order revising the distribution of work among Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, Directors General and officers of equivalent rank. Sandhu alleged that the order had been issued without discussing the changes with the Commission or informing him. He further alleged that Garg had allocated responsibilities to himself and to officers holding equivalent or higher positions.
In his complaint, Sandhu maintained that similar actions had occurred previously despite repeated oral and written instructions requiring prior consultation and approval. Joshi raised comparable objections in a separate communication and alleged that the Administration Division had failed to provide him with the relevant file when he sought access to it. Both Commissioners cited Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, while alleging violations of the statutory framework governing the Commission's functioning.
Internal Cabinet Secretariat records show that the complaints were examined on August 3 and 4 before a decision was taken on how to respond. An initial note suggested seeking the opinion of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. However, a subsequent assessment emphasised that the Election Commission was an independent constitutional institution whose functioning was protected from executive interference. The note acknowledged the seriousness of the complaints but observed that the letters had been sent individually rather than on behalf of the Commission.
It stated that initiating action without an official communication from the Commission as a whole could be inappropriate and might be interpreted as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body. The Secretariat also noted that although Garg had been appointed through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, his conduct as an Election Commission officer was governed by the poll body's own rules and guidelines.
Following the internal deliberations, Somanathan acknowledged the two complaints in separate communications dated August 5. Copies were forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the office of the Chief Election Commissioner. The Cabinet Secretariat also recommended placing the matter on record so that it could be considered in future decisions concerning Garg, an IAS officer of the 1996 Himachal Pradesh cadre. The RTI documents establish that the complaints were formally received and circulated to the authorities concerned. They do not establish whether any subsequent inquiry or disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
The disclosure comes against the backdrop of earlier reports concerning disagreements within the Election Commission over administrative decisions and electoral roll management. In September, reports had raised questions about whether certain changes to the allocation of responsibilities could concentrate powers relating to voter database management at the Commission's headquarters. The Election Commission subsequently clarified that the disputed work redistribution orders were never implemented following directions from the two Commissioners. It also maintained that their letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned the conduct of an officer on deputation, rather than policy decisions or matters relating to the information technology division.
The latest RTI disclosure provides details of the Commissioners' objections and the Cabinet Secretariat's response, while leaving unresolved whether any further administrative action followed.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.