Meet Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, Vivek Joshi - No action by govt despite ECs flagging conduct of an ECI official, RTI shows

The central allegation was that Maneesh Garg changed how senior Election Commission officials’ work was distributed without following the Commission’s internal approval process. The Commissioners said this mattered because such decisions affect authority, coordination and the functioning of a constitutional body.

After becoming link officer of the Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration), Garg reportedly issued an order revising work allocations among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and officers of equivalent rank. Sandhu and Joshi said he did not discuss the changes with the Commission or the officers concerned. They also alleged that he acted despite repeated oral and written instructions requiring prior discussion or approval.

The Commissioners described the conduct as violating the 2023 law governing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. Joshi further alleged that the Administration Division did not provide him with the relevant file when he requested it. The Cabinet Secretariat ultimately did not initiate action, saying the complaints were individual communications rather than a formal Commission-wide position.

Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are the two Election Commissioners who complained about Garg. Both were appointed in March 2024. Sandhu, 63, is a former Uttarakhand chief secretary, while Joshi, 60, is a former Haryana chief secretary and former Union Personnel Secretary.

Maneesh Garg is a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner in the Election Commission. After taking charge as the link officer for the Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration), he issued the disputed order changing work allocations among senior officials. The complaints concerned his conduct in that administrative role.

The article also gives the Commissioners’ professional backgrounds. Sandhu studied medicine, history and law. Joshi studied mechanical engineering, international business and international economics. Garg’s appointment was made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, but the Cabinet Secretariat said his work and conduct were governed by the Election Commission’s rules and guidelines.

Two Election Commissioners complained: Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. They sent separate letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29. Their complaints concerned Maneesh Garg’s conduct and his alleged changes to internal work allocation.

The affected officials were not limited to one post. The alleged order changed responsibilities among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and officers of equivalent rank. The Commissioners said the changes were made without consultation with the Commission or with the officers whose responsibilities were altered.

The number of complainants mattered to the Cabinet Secretariat’s response. Although both Commissioners raised similar concerns, they did so separately and in their individual capacities. A later note said the communications could not be treated as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole. That distinction led officials to conclude that executive action might be inappropriate.

The Election Commission of India is the constitutional body at the centre of this dispute. The article presents it as an institution whose working and functioning are governed by its own rules and guidelines. Its constitutional status means it is designed to operate independently rather than under routine executive direction.

That protection matters because the Commission oversees sensitive electoral administration. The Cabinet Secretariat’s note stressed that the body is insulated from executive interference by design, so it can function independently and transparently. This was the reason officials hesitated to act directly on complaints from individual Commissioners.

The note also distinguished Garg’s original appointment from his current institutional position. Although the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet appointed him, the Secretariat said he was now an officer of the Election Commission. Therefore, his work and conduct were governed by the Commission’s rules and guidelines, rather than being handled simply as an executive personnel matter.

The Cabinet Secretariat did not dismiss the allegations. Instead, it focused on how they had been submitted. Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately and in their individual capacities, while there was no official communication from the Commission as a whole. Officials believed that distinction was crucial because the Commission is designed to function independently.

The Cabinet Secretariat initially proposed seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s opinion. A later note changed direction, saying action at that stage might be inappropriate. It explained that the Commissioners’ letters must be taken seriously, but could not be treated as a formal position of the entire Commission.

The concern was institutional, not simply procedural. Executive action based on individual complaints could be seen as interference in a constitutional body’s internal functioning. The Secretariat therefore marked the communications to relevant offices, including the Department of Personnel and Training, but decided against initiating action. The documents were released under the RTI Act.

The possible consequence was institutional interference. The Cabinet Secretariat’s August 4 note said that acting on complaints from two Election Commissioners without an official communication from the Commission as a whole could intrude into the functioning of a constitutional body. That could weaken the boundary protecting the Commission from executive direction.

The mechanism was straightforward. The executive would receive individual complaints, decide whether to pursue them, and potentially seek action against an officer of the Commission. But the Secretariat said Garg’s work and conduct were governed by the Election Commission’s own rules and guidelines. His appointment by the Cabinet did not make him an ordinary executive officer for this purpose.

For that reason, the Secretariat treated institutional independence as more important than immediate executive intervention. It acknowledged the complaints and circulated them to relevant offices, including the CEC’s office, but did not initiate action. The dispute therefore remained within the Commission’s constitutional framework rather than becoming an executive proceeding.

Section 18, as described in the question, supports independence by placing important decisions within the Commission’s collective process. Commissioners should first seek consensus. If consensus is impossible, a majority decision provides a clear and lawful way to resolve disagreement without transferring authority to the executive.

That mechanism is relevant here because Sandhu and Joshi complained separately about Garg, while the Cabinet Secretariat said there was no communication from the Commission as a whole. A collective decision under Section 18 could establish the Commission’s formal position through its own internal process. It would distinguish an institutional decision from individual concerns.

The article does not set out the text of Section 18, but it does stress the Commission’s protection from executive interference and its governing rules. Consensus or majority decision-making would reinforce that design. It would allow the Commission to address disputed work allocations internally, preserve accountability, and prevent outside action from being based solely on separate individual communications.