After complaints from two ECs against officer, Cabinet Secretariat noted action may be ‘inappropriate’, seen as ‘interference’

Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi separately asked Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan to take appropriate action against Maneesh Garg. Garg was Senior Deputy Election Commissioner and had taken additional charge of the administration division while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave. The request concerned how Garg exercised that temporary responsibility.

According to the letters, Garg issued a work-allocation order on July 28, only hours after taking charge. Sandhu said the revised allocation was made without discussing it with the Commission or him. Joshi separately said that when he requested the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided.

The Cabinet Secretariat did not initiate action. Its records say the letters were individual communications, not a formal communication from the Commission as a whole. It therefore acknowledged them, copied the Chief Election Commissioner’s office and the Department of Personnel and Training, and placed the matter on record for possible future decisions about Garg.

The Election Commission of India is the constitutional authority that administers elections. Article 324 of the Constitution establishes it and gives it responsibility for election supervision, direction and control. The source describes it as a multi-member Constitutional body. That status matters because election administration must remain independent, transparent and fair rather than being controlled by the government of the day.

The article’s records stress that the Commission is designed to be insulated from executive interference. They also say it should transact business unanimously as far as possible, or by majority. In this case, two Commissioners wrote separately about an officer’s conduct, but the Cabinet Secretariat did not treat those letters as a formal communication from the Commission itself.

That distinction shaped the response. Officials feared that acting on individual communications could interfere with the Commission’s functioning. They acknowledged the letters, informed the Chief Election Commissioner’s office and the Department of Personnel and Training, and avoided direct action against Garg at that stage.

The Election Commission of India normally consists of three members: the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. This structure makes it a multi-member body rather than an office controlled by one individual. The article does not state the membership number directly, but it identifies two Election Commissioners and refers to the Chief Election Commissioner as part of the Commission.

Its decision-making rule is collective. The Cabinet Secretariat noted that the Commission is supposed to transact business unanimously as far as possible, or by majority. Thus, agreement is preferred, but a majority decision can settle a disagreement. This principle was important because Sandhu and Joshi sent separate letters rather than a communication formally issued by the Commission as a whole.

The Cabinet Secretariat therefore treated the letters seriously without treating them as a Commission decision. It said action based only on individual communications might be inappropriate and could be construed as interference. It instead copied the CEC’s office and informed the Department of Personnel and Training.

The Cabinet Secretariat said the Election Commission is constitutionally insulated from executive interference. That protection is intended to preserve independent and transparent functioning. Officials therefore distinguished between a formal communication from the Commission and letters sent by individual Commissioners. Sandhu and Joshi’s letters were considered serious, but they did not represent an official decision of the full Commission.

The concern arose because the letters sought action against Garg, an officer serving inside the Commission. The August 4 noting said the Commission should transact business unanimously where possible or by majority. Since no communication from the Commission as a whole had been received, executive action could appear to override or influence the Commission’s own internal process.

The Cabinet Secretariat consequently decided that action at that stage would be inappropriate. It acknowledged both letters, copied the Principal Private Secretary to the CEC, and informed the Department of Personnel and Training. This preserved a record without directly intervening in the Commission’s functioning.

After deciding that immediate action would be inappropriate, the Cabinet Secretariat chose a limited administrative response. Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan wrote separately to Sandhu and Joshi on August 5. He acknowledged receipt of their July 29 letters concerning Maneesh Garg’s working in the Commission.

The acknowledgments were marked to the Department of Personnel and Training Secretary, the Establishment Officer and the Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. The Cabinet Secretariat also notified the CEC’s office because the issue concerned an officer working within the Election Commission. This created an official record without directing the Commission’s internal affairs.

The records also said that the matter could be considered in future decision-making about Garg. Garg was an all-India service officer, so the Department of Personnel and Training was informed for that reason. The immediate outcome was therefore acknowledgment, circulation and record-keeping, not disciplinary action or a finding against Garg.

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, or ACC, had appointed Maneesh Garg as an officer in the Election Commission. The article identifies him as an IAS officer of the Himachal Pradesh cadre and says the ACC made the appointment. That establishes the committee’s role in approving or making the relevant senior appointment.

However, the Cabinet Secretariat drew a distinction between appointment authority and workplace regulation. It said Garg was now an officer of the Election Commission, even though the ACC had appointed him. His conduct was therefore to be regulated by the Election Commission’s rules and guidelines, not treated as a matter for automatic executive intervention.

This distinction supported the decision not to act immediately on the two letters. The Cabinet Secretariat said executive action without a formal communication from the Commission could be inappropriate. It still informed the Department of Personnel and Training because Garg was an all-India service officer and said the record could inform future decisions.

Protecting the Election Commission from executive interference matters because elections require an impartial administrator. If the government could direct the Commission’s internal decisions or punish officers through outside pressure, election administration could become vulnerable to political influence. The article therefore links insulation from the executive with independent and transparent functioning.

The Cabinet Secretariat applied that principle in this dispute. Sandhu and Joshi raised concerns about Garg’s work-allocation order and access to an administration file. Yet officials noted that their letters were individual communications, not a formal decision of the full Commission. Acting directly on them might have intruded into the Commission’s own collective process.

The immediate solution was cautious. The Secretariat acknowledged the letters, informed the CEC’s office and the Department of Personnel and Training, and preserved the matter for future consideration. This approach respected the Commission’s institutional independence while ensuring that the concerns were documented and not simply ignored.