RTI reveals why ECs’ complaints against officer went unacted upon
NEW DELHI: The Cabinet Secretariat did not take any action on complaints filed by two election commissioners against an officer in the Election Commission, saying the letters were written in their “individual capacity” and did not represent the poll panel as a whole, according to documents released in response to an RTI application.Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had separately written to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, raising concerns about the conduct of senior deputy election commissioner Maneesh Garg, an IAS officer appointed to the Commission by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) on September 2, 2024.The letters were provided in an RTI response to activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra (retd).The Indian Express had reported in September that the two Election Commissioners approached the Cabinet Secretary after Garg issued a work allocation order that they believed could concentrate powers over changes to voter records at the central level, instead of allowing officials at the state level to handle them.In a statement on September 26, the Election Commission said the work allocation orders issued by Garg were never implemented following directions from the two Commissioners.The poll panel also said the complaints concerned an officer on deputation and not matters related to policy or the IT division.
What did the Election Commissioners allege?
According to a Cabinet note included in the RTI response, both Commissioners alleged that Garg had issued an order changing the work allocation of officers senior or equivalent to him after taking charge as the link officer of the deputy election commissioner (Administration).
The Commissioners said the changes were made without consulting the Commission or the officers concerned. They also alleged that Garg acted despite repeated oral and written instructions against making such changes without prior discussion or approval from the Commission."Both the ECs have stated that Shri Garg, after assuming the charge as link officer of DEC (Admn), has issued an order regarding work allocation of equivalent and senior officers to him without discussing the revised work allocation with the Commission or the officers concerned.
Further, the aforementioned ECs have stated that this has happened despite repeated oral and written instructions to all concerned officers against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the Commission," the Cabinet note said.The two Commissioners alleged that Garg's actions violated the chief election commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.Joshi also said that when he sought the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided to him.
Why did the Cabinet Secretariat refrain from taking action?
A Cabinet note prepared on August 3 proposed seeking the chief election commissioner's opinion on the complaints."In this connection, we may request the chief election commissioner for his opinion on the issue. Accordingly, a draft DO is put up for approval, please."However, a subsequent note dated August 4 said taking action on complaints from individual Election Commissioners without an official communication from the Commission as a whole could be seen as interference in the functioning of the constitutional body."The Commission is a Constitutional Body and is insulated from executive interference by design to ensure that it functions independently and in a transparent manner. The working and functioning of the Commission are governed by the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission. 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 said.It added that although Garg had been appointed by the ACC, he was now an officer of the Election Commission, and his work and conduct were governed by the poll panel's rules and guidelines.The note also referred to Section 18 of the 2023 Act, which states that the Commission should conduct its business unanimously as far as possible, with any differences of opinion settled by a majority decision."Election Commissioners have sent these communications for appropriate action; however, in the absence of any official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate.
It may also be construed as interference in the functioning of the Constitutional Body. Hence, it would be appropriate to send acknowledgement to both Election Commissioners with a copy to PPS to CEC for information of CEC," the note said.
Cabinet Secretary acknowledges complaints
The draft note signed by Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan was also marked to the secretary of the department of personnel and training and the establishment officer to keep the matter on record.The note said this would "enable it to be taken into account in future decision-making regarding the officer".Somanathan also signed an acknowledgement letter confirming receipt of the complaints and sent copies to both election commissioners.The letters were acknowledged on August 5, 2026, with copies marked to the department of personnel and training, the Establishment Officer and the office of the chief election commissioner.