Cabinet Secretariat did not act on complaints against senior EC officer, RTI reveals
New Delhi: The Cabinet Secretariat did not act on separate complaints filed by two Election Commissioners against a senior officer of the Election Commission of India (ECI), stating that the letters were sent in their “individual capacity” and did not represent an official communication from the poll body as a whole.
Documents released under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, 2026, raising concerns about the conduct of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg.
The complaints concerned a work allocation order issued by Garg, an IAS officer appointed to the ECI by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet in September 2024. The order reportedly revised responsibilities among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and officers of equivalent rank without prior discussion with the Commission or the officers concerned.
The two Commissioners said the changes were made despite repeated oral and written instructions against such decisions without the Commission’s approval. Joshi also alleged that the Administration Division did not provide him with a file he had requested.
The issue came to light after The Indian Express reported in September that the revised allocation risked centralising powers related to adding or removing voters’ names and updating electoral rolls, instead of allowing officials at the state level to handle these functions.
A Cabinet note dated August 4 said taking action on the complaints without an official communication from the Commission could be viewed as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body.
“The above communications are from the Election Commissioners in their individual capacity and, while they must be taken with due seriousness, they cannot be seen as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole,” the note stated.
It added that Garg’s work and conduct, despite his appointment by the Cabinet committee, were governed by the ECI’s rules and guidelines.
An earlier note dated August 3 proposed seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s opinion. However, the subsequent assessment concluded that action at that stage might be inappropriate without a formal communication from the Commission.
The Cabinet Secretariat decided to acknowledge both letters and send copies to the Chief Election Commissioner’s office. The acknowledgements were issued on August 5, 2026, with copies marked to the Department of Personnel and Training and the Establishment Officer.
The matter was also placed on record to allow it to be considered in future decisions concerning Garg. The Commissioners had alleged that the work allocation changes breached the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Section 18 of the Act provides for the Commission’s business to be conducted unanimously as far as possible, with differences settled by majority.