Cabinet Secretary didn’t act on EC’ plaint as it was unofficial: RTI

The cabinet secretariat refused to take action because it did not treat the letters from S S Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as a formal communication from the full Election Commission. It said the complaints had to be taken seriously, but the commission’s decisions must be made unanimously or, if needed, by majority. The letters represented two commissioners acting separately.

The secretariat also relied on the commission’s constitutional status. It said the Election Commission is independent of executive government and empowered to manage its own affairs. Garg was an officer of the poll panel, so his conduct was governed by the commission’s own rules and guidelines.

The file note concluded that action without a formal communication from the full commission could be inappropriate and might be seen as executive interference. The secretariat therefore only acknowledged the letters, marking copies to the CEC and the DoPT. No follow-up action was reported.

Maneesh Garg ordered a revised allocation of work among senior officers while temporarily filling in for DEC (administration) Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who was on leave. The order affected the route followed by files from the Election Commission’s IT division.

The IT division was headed by Director General Seema Khanna. Under Garg’s revised arrangement, its files would no longer be routed through Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar. This altered the administrative path for work connected with the division, including ECINET, the software conceived and managed by the IT division.

Sandhu and Joshi objected because they said the reallocation had been made without prior discussion with the commission or the officers concerned. Their objections came amid concerns about ECINET being too centralised and limiting access for authorised field officers. The reallocation order was later not implemented.

Garg’s proposed reallocation of work did not become operational after the two election commissioners objected. The order would have changed the route followed by files from the IT division, but that administrative change was ultimately left unused.

The dispute began when Garg was filling in for DEC (administration) Bhanu Prakash Yeturu during Yeturu’s leave. Garg revised the allocation of work among senior officers and removed DEC Sanjay Kumar from the routine route for IT division files. Sandhu and Joshi said the change was made without prior discussion with the commission or the officers concerned.

The cabinet secretariat did not order the Election Commission to reverse the decision. Instead, it acknowledged the individual letters and cited the commission’s independence. The article reports that no follow-up action was taken by the Election Commission or the CEC. It also notes that Garg acted under powers delegated by a 1997 office order.

The Election Commission of India is the poll panel responsible for conducting elections and administering related electoral work. In this article, it is described as a constitutional body, meaning its authority and institutional position come from the Constitution rather than ordinary executive instructions alone.

That status matters because the commission is insulated from executive interference by design. The cabinet secretariat used this principle when it declined to intervene in the dispute over Garg’s order. It said the commission was empowered to conduct its own affairs, while its officers’ conduct was governed by the commission’s rules and guidelines.

Constitutional independence does not mean the commission can ignore its own procedures. The secretariat emphasised that decisions should be taken by the commission unanimously or, when unanimity is impossible, by majority. In this case, it treated the two individual letters as insufficient for executive action and marked its response to the CEC.

The article names two election commissioners, S S Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and refers separately to the Chief Election Commissioner. Together, these references identify the three-member commission involved in the reported dispute. The article’s key point is that formal decisions belong to the commission collectively, not automatically to individual members.

The cabinet secretariat said the two letters were written by the commissioners in their individual capacities. It therefore did not treat them as a formal communication from the Election Commission as a whole. The secretariat emphasised that commission decisions are to be taken unanimously and, when unanimity is not possible, by majority.

This distinction shaped the response. Since no official communication from the full commission had been received, the cabinet secretariat said action could be inappropriate and might look like interference. It only acknowledged the letters and sent copies to the CEC and the Department of Personnel and Training. The article reports no later follow-up.

The 1997 office order delegated the Election Commission’s financial and administrative powers to deputy election commissioners. This gave DECs authority to handle several routine personnel and administrative matters without placing every file before the commissioners.

The order gave the DEC (administration) powers concerning the appointment, recruitment, transfer, and posting of employees. It also covered the posting and transfer of the personal staff of election commissioners and deputy election commissioners. Garg held the DEC (administration) position while Yeturu was on leave.

The practical effect was that files about transfers and postings did not need to be routinely submitted to the Election Commission. A commission officer cited this point when explaining why Garg’s conduct was viewed as falling within the rules. The article also notes that the reallocation order itself was never implemented after Sandhu and Joshi objected to it.

Separating an election body from executive government matters because elections require an authority that can act without direct government control. The article describes this independence as deliberate insulation from executive interference and says the commission is empowered to conduct its own affairs.

In the reported dispute, that principle shaped the cabinet secretariat’s response. It declined to intervene after two commissioners complained about Garg’s order, saying executive action might itself interfere with the constitutional body. The secretariat instead left the matter to the commission’s rules, guidelines, and collective decision-making process.

Independence does not remove the need for internal accountability. The article says commission decisions should be unanimous or, when necessary, decided by majority. It also records objections that the work reallocation lacked prior discussion. The balance is therefore institutional autonomy alongside internal procedures, so election administration remains independent while disagreements are handled within the commission.