Election commissioners Sandhu, Joshi complained about EC officer but no action was taken, shows RTI

The Cabinet Secretariat did not act on complaints by two Election Commissioners against the conduct of an officer in the poll body, noting that the communications were made in their individual capacities and that intervention without an official communication from the Election Commission as a whole could amount to interference in the functioning of a constitutional body, records released under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had separately written to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, 2026, raising concerns about the conduct of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, an IAS officer posted to the Commission by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet on September 2, 2024.

MUST READ | Election Commission transfers around 20 CEOs in 20 months amid SIR, changes seen in Nirwachan Sadan, Delhi EC: Report

According to a Cabinet note included in the RTI response to activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra (retd), both Commissioners alleged that Garg, after taking charge as link officer of the Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration), revised work allocations among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and equivalent officers without consulting the Commission or the officers concerned.

They said the changes were made despite repeated oral and written instructions against such decisions without prior discussion or approval. Joshi also alleged that the Administration Division did not provide him with a file he had sought.

The Commissioners said Garg’s actions violated the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and departed from established practice.

DON'T MISS | Election Commission announces voter list revision in 17 states, SIR schedule to follow

A Cabinet note dated August 3 proposed seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s opinion on the complaints. However, a subsequent note observed that the communications were from the two Commissioners in their individual capacities and did not constitute a formal communication from the Commission as a whole.

It also noted that, although Garg had been appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, his work and conduct were now governed by the Election Commission’s rules and guidelines. Citing Section 18 of the 2023 Act, the note said the Commission’s business should be transacted unanimously as far as possible, with differences settled by majority.

The Cabinet Secretariat concluded that taking action without an official communication from the Commission could be inappropriate and construed as executive interference. It recommended acknowledging both letters and marking copies to the Chief Election Commissioner’s office.

MUST READ | All about Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner at the centre of the SIR row

Somanathan signed the draft note and acknowledged receipt of the complaints on August 5, 2026, with copies marked to the Department of Personnel and Training and the Establishment Officer for the record and future decision-making regarding Garg.

The Election Commission had said on September 26 that the revised work-allocation orders were never implemented following directions from the two Commissioners.

(With PTI inputs)