Cabinet Secretariat noted action on ECs’ complaints may be seen as ‘interference’: RTI reply

The unusual dispute involved two Election Commissioners seeking action against a senior official within the poll panel. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29 about Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg.

They alleged that Garg changed the responsibilities of senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, director generals and other officers. According to their letters, he acted without consulting the Election Commission or the affected officers. Sandhu said the revised allocation was issued without discussing or informing the commission or him. Joshi said a requested administration file was not provided.

The commissioners also alleged that Garg’s conduct violated established practice and provisions of the 2023 Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act. The Cabinet Secretariat acknowledged their letters but did not initiate action, saying individual communications were not a formal complaint from the poll panel as a whole. It sent the complaints to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s office.

Maneesh Garg changed the Election Commission’s work allocation for several senior officials. The affected posts included senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, director generals and other officers. His order revised an earlier allocation issued in September 2025.

Garg took additional charge of the administration division on July 28, while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave from July 27 to August 9. Within hours, Garg issued the new order. Sandhu and Joshi said such changes required prior discussion or approval from the Election Commission, based on repeated verbal and written instructions.

The commissioners alleged that Garg neither consulted the poll panel nor informed the officers concerned. Sandhu said the allocation was changed without discussing it with him. Joshi said the administration division did not provide a file he requested. On September 26, the poll body said Garg’s revised orders had not been implemented after directions from the two commissioners.

The Right to Information Act is a transparency law that allows people to request records held by public authorities. It can show how officials handled a complaint, what they considered and what decisions they took. Here, the records came from an application by RTI activist and retired Navy officer Commodore Lokesh K Batra.

The disclosed file showed that Sandhu and Joshi wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29. A Cabinet Secretariat note dated August 4 said their letters were sent in individual capacities and did not amount to a formal complaint from the Election Commission as a whole. It also proposed seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s opinion.

The records showed why the Secretariat did not initiate action against Garg. They said acting without an official communication from the full poll panel could be inappropriate and could be construed as interference in a constitutional body’s functioning. The Secretariat acknowledged both letters and sent copies to Gyanesh Kumar’s office, but the records do not show whether he later replied.

The scale of disagreement became clearer when The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected 14 times in the 10 months before the report. These objections involved decisions taken by the Election Commission, showing that the dispute extended beyond Garg’s work-allocation order.

Many of the objections were connected to the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. The commissioners said some decisions related to that exercise had been taken without their knowledge. The article does not list every objection or describe each disputed decision, but it identifies the voter-roll revision as a central area of concern.

The wider controversy continued after the complaints about Garg. Since October 2, nationwide protests have called for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over concerns about the Election Commission’s functioning and alleged irregularities in voter-roll revision. The reported objections therefore formed part of a broader debate about consultation, internal disagreement and the poll panel’s decisions.

The Cabinet Secretariat did not initiate action against Maneesh Garg after receiving the two commissioners’ complaints. Its concern was institutional: the letters came from Sandhu and Joshi individually, not from the Election Commission acting as a whole. The Secretariat considered direct intervention potentially inappropriate.

A file note said the Election Commission was an independent constitutional body. It added that action without an official communication from the poll panel could be construed as interference in the body’s functioning. Although Garg had been appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, the note said his conduct was governed by the Commission’s rules and guidelines.

The practical result was limited follow-up. The Secretariat acknowledged both complaints and sent copies to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s office. It does not establish whether Kumar later responded to the proposed request for his opinion. The decision left the matter within the poll panel’s institutional process rather than producing immediate executive action against Garg.

Section 18 of the 2023 Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act sets out how the Election Commission should handle internal disagreement. The Cabinet Secretariat cited it while examining Sandhu’s and Joshi’s complaints about Garg.

The provision says the poll body should make decisions unanimously as far as possible. If unanimity cannot be reached, the disagreement is settled by a majority. This means individual objections are part of an internal decision-making structure, rather than automatically becoming a complaint for executive action.

That mechanism shaped the Secretariat’s response. It noted that the two commissioners had written in their individual capacities, while the letters did not represent a formal complaint from the Commission as a whole. The Secretariat therefore chose to acknowledge the complaints and send them to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s office. The records do not show whether he later responded to the request for his opinion.

The Election Commission of India is described in the article as an independent constitutional body. Its role is tied to the conduct and administration of elections, including decisions involving electoral rolls. Its constitutional status means it is not meant to function as an ordinary department controlled by the executive.

That independence mattered in the Garg dispute. The Cabinet Secretariat noted that Sandhu and Joshi had written individually, not as the Commission collectively. It warned that acting without a formal communication from the full poll panel could be construed as executive interference. The note also said Garg’s conduct was governed by the Commission’s rules and guidelines.

Institutional independence helps election decisions be made through the Commission’s own procedures rather than outside direction. The article records disagreements over work allocation, electoral-roll revision and consultation. It also reports protests seeking Kumar’s resignation. These developments make the Commission’s internal decision-making and protection from executive interference important for public confidence, although the article does not establish a final resolution.