Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Oct 23: An RTI reply has revealed that Cabinet secretary T V Somanathan did not initiate action on separate complaints filed by election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi against senior deputy election commissioner Maneesh Garg over alleged irregularities in the allocation of work within the Election Commission of India.
According to the RTI response provided to activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra (retd) and reviewed by news agency, Sandhu and Joshi sent separate letters to Somanathan on July 29, 2026, raising concerns about Garg’s functioning.
The two commissioners alleged that Garg, after taking charge as the link officer of the deputy election commissioner (Administration), issued an order revising the work allocation of senior and equivalent officers without consulting the Commission or the officials concerned. They claimed the move was made despite repeated oral and written instructions against such changes without prior discussion or approval.
However, Somanathan maintained that the letters had been sent by the commissioners in their individual capacities and did not represent an official communication from the commission as a whole. He observed that initiating action without such a communication could be inappropriate and might be viewed as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body.
The issue came to light days after The Indian Express reported that the complaints concerned a work allocation order that could centralise powers relating to the addition and deletion of names and updating of voter records, instead of leaving these functions to officials at the state level.
The Election Commission later clarified that the revised work allocation orders were not implemented following directions from the two commissioners. It also stated that the complaints concerned an officer on deputation and were not related to policy or IT division matters.
In their communications, Sandhu and Joshi alleged that Garg’s actions violated the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
A Cabinet note prepared on August 3 proposed seeking the chief election commissioner’s opinion on the matter. A subsequent note observed that acting on complaints submitted by individual election commissioners without formal communication from the Commission as a whole could be interpreted as interference in its functioning.
The note emphasised that the Election Commission is a constitutional body designed to function independently and transparently, with its activities governed by its own rules and guidelines. It added that Garg’s conduct should be regulated and monitored in accordance with the commission’s established procedures.
Citing Section 18 of the 2023 Act, the note stated that the commission’s business should be conducted unanimously as far as possible, with differences of opinion resolved by majority.
Somanathan acknowledged receipt of both letters on August 5, 2026, and forwarded copies to the Department of Personnel and Training, the establishment officer and the office of the chief election commissioner. Copies of the acknowledgement letters were also sent to Sandhu and Joshi.
The Cabinet secretary’s note stated that the matter would be placed on record so it could be considered in future decision-making concerning the officer.
Joshi also alleged that the Administration Division did not provide him with the relevant file when he sought it. Both commissioners maintained that the changes to work allocation were contrary to established practice and were made without prior consultation or approval from the commission.