RTI reveals Cabinet Secretariat sent election commissioners’ letters to CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The Cabinet Secretariat received letters from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu and Vivek Joshi alleging misconduct by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The letters concerned a work-allocation order issued without consulting the commissioners. The Secretariat forwarded them to the Department of Personnel and Training and, as the RTI documents revealed, to CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s office too.

On August 3, the Secretariat proposed seeking CEC Kumar’s opinion. On August 4, it noted that the letters had been written by the commissioners in their individual capacities, not as formal Election Commission communication. On August 5, it sent acknowledgements to Sandhu and Joshi, copying DoPT officials and Kumar’s principal private secretary.

The response listed these acknowledgements and endorsements as the steps taken. The article reports that the Cabinet Secretary did not act because the letters were individual communications, while the Secretariat warned that intervention could appear improper.

A Right to Information application is a formal request for information held by a public authority. It can seek records such as letters, file notes, acknowledgements, and decisions. The authority’s information officer responds with the available documents or details of action taken. RTI therefore helps reveal how an official matter was handled, rather than relying only on public statements.

Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) filed his application on September 24. The Cabinet Secretariat released documents showing that it had received Sandhu’s and Joshi’s letters, considered seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s opinion, and sent acknowledgements. The documents also showed that the acknowledgements were copied to Kumar’s principal private secretary.

This clarified an important detail. Earlier reporting had established that the letters went to DoPT, but the RTI response showed that the CEC’s office also received them. The records listed endorsements and acknowledgements rather than substantive action on the allegations.

The Election Commission of India currently has three members: the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. This composition comes from established constitutional and statutory practice, not from the supplied article. The CEC heads the commission and coordinates its work. The other Election Commissioners are members who examine issues, participate in deliberations, and help decide matters under the commission’s rules.

The article names CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Their letters concerned an internal administrative dispute involving Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The commissioners said Garg issued a work-allocation order without consulting them, and Joshi separately said a requested file was not provided.

The article also reports that the Election Commission said decisions were either unanimous or taken by majority. That makes the relationship between the CEC, other commissioners, and senior officials important when responsibilities and files are reassigned.

Sandhu and Joshi wrote to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan after Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg issued a work-allocation order on July 28. They alleged that Garg acted without consulting the election commissioners. The dispute arose while Garg held additional charge of the Administration Division and DEC Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave until August 9.

Sandhu’s letter included the order, which allocated work to Garg and other Election Commission officials. Those named included Director General IT Seema Khanna and DEC Sanjay Kumar. The commissioners were concerned that Garg changed the routing of IT department files under Khanna. The files had earlier gone to CEC Kumar.

Both commissioners cited Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the 2023 CEC/EC Act. Joshi also said the Administration Division did not provide a file he had requested. Their nearly identical letters were sent on July 29.

The Cabinet Secretariat worried because the Election Commission is a constitutional body, and outside intervention in its internal administration could raise concerns about institutional independence. The Secretariat’s August 4 note said that any step might be “construed as interference.” This did not mean the Secretariat ignored the letters; it recorded the concern while deciding how to handle them.

The documents show a cautious process. On August 3, the Secretariat proposed seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s opinion. The next day, it noted that Sandhu and Joshi had written in their individual capacities, rather than sending a formal communication from the Election Commission. On August 5, it issued acknowledgements and copied relevant DoPT and CEC-office officials.

The Secretariat also recommended placing the matter on record with DoPT for future decisions concerning Garg. The article reports that no substantive action followed because the letters were treated as individual communications.

If senior officials can change responsibilities without consulting commissioners, administration may become unclear. Officers could receive competing instructions about who handles files, approves work, or controls information. That can delay decisions and make accountability harder to trace. It could also create disagreement between the CEC, other commissioners, and senior officials.

The article gives a concrete example. Garg’s July 28 order allocated work to himself and other officials, including Seema Khanna and Sanjay Kumar. The commissioners said it changed the routing of IT department files under Khanna; those files had earlier gone to CEC Kumar. Joshi also said a requested Administration Division file was not provided.

The immediate risk is not automatically that every decision becomes invalid. Rather, internal coordination and confidence could suffer. The dispute is especially sensitive because the article links the IT department to an investigation over a protocol that restricted Electoral Registration Officials’ access to elector-roll data.

A constitutional body responsible for elections must be able to administer its work without improper pressure. Independence helps voters, candidates, and political parties trust that election decisions are made through established procedures. It also protects officials from outside influence and supports consistent accountability. These are general democratic principles; the article specifically records the Secretariat’s concern about perceived interference.

The case illustrates the issue through an internal dispute. Sandhu and Joshi alleged that Garg issued a work-allocation order without consulting the commissioners. The order covered senior officials and changed the routing of IT department files. The Cabinet Secretariat therefore noted that action could be “construed as interference” in a constitutional body.

The article reports that the Secretariat acknowledged the letters, sent them to DoPT and the CEC’s office, and suggested recording the matter for future decisions about Garg. The Election Commission denied reported differences and said decisions were unanimous or majority-based.