New Delhi: Two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, separately raised concerns about the conduct of a senior Election Commission of India official in letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan. However, the Cabinet Secretariat did not initiate action on their complaints, according to a Right to Information (RTI) response.
The response, provided to activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra (retd), states that both commissioners wrote to Somanathan on July 29, 2026, regarding the working of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, an IAS officer who joined the poll body on deputation on September 2, 2024.
The complaints concerned a change in work allocation among senior officials of the Election Commission. According to a Cabinet note cited in the RTI response, Sandhu and Joshi alleged that Garg issued an order changing the responsibilities of officers of equivalent or higher rank without first discussing the changes with the Commission or the officials concerned.
They also said the order was issued despite repeated oral and written instructions against making such changes without prior discussion or approval from the Commission.
Why the Cabinet Secretariat Did Not Act
The Cabinet Secretariat’s position was that the two letters had been sent by the commissioners in their individual capacity and did not constitute an official communication from the Election Commission as a whole.
A note prepared on the matter said that taking action without a formal communication from the constitutional body could be seen as interference in its functioning. It also recommended seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s opinion on the issue.
The note stated that the Election Commission operates independently and that its work is governed by its own rules and guidelines. While the complaints needed to be taken seriously, it said, action at that stage could be inappropriate without a formal communication from the Commission.
The Cabinet Secretary acknowledged the letters on August 5, 2026. Copies were also marked to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the office of the Chief Election Commissioner. The matter was placed on record for consideration in future decisions concerning the officer.
Commissioners Alleged Violation of Election Law
In their communications, Sandhu and Joshi alleged that Garg’s actions violated the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
A Cabinet note dated August 3 proposed seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s views on the complaints. A subsequent note, prepared the following day, raised concerns about the executive acting on complaints made by individual commissioners without an official communication from the Commission as a whole.
The note also said Garg’s conduct should be regulated and monitored under the Election Commission’s applicable rules and guidelines.
Section 18 of the 2023 Act states that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously. Where commissioners disagree, the matter is decided by a majority.
Dispute Over Work Allocation Within the Commission
The complaints followed a work allocation order that reportedly raised concerns about the concentration of powers relating to voter list management at the central level, rather than allowing officials at the state level to handle certain functions.
The Election Commission later clarified that the revised work allocation orders were never implemented after directions from the two commissioners. It also said the letters concerned an officer on deputation and did not relate to policy or information technology division matters.
The RTI disclosure brings the internal disagreement over administrative responsibilities within the poll body into focus. The documents describe the commissioners’ allegations and the Cabinet Secretariat’s reasoning for not taking immediate action. They do not, by themselves, establish that the alleged misconduct occurred.