RTI Reveals Two Election Commissioners Filed Complaints Against Senior Panel Official

Two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, wrote separate letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29, 2026, raising concerns over the conduct of senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act reveal. The complaints concerned an order issued by Garg that changed the distribution of responsibilities among senior officers of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Both Commissioners alleged that the changes were made without prior consultation with the Commission or the officers affected by the decision.

The correspondence comes amid wider scrutiny of internal differences within the poll body. Earlier reports had highlighted objections by the two Commissioners to decisions involving the addition of voters and the deletion of names from electoral rolls. However, the letters disclosed in this RTI response relate specifically to the allocation of official responsibilities.

Sandhu stated that Garg was given additional charge of the Administration Division on July 28 while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave. Shortly after assuming the temporary responsibility, Garg issued an order modifying the work distribution among Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, Directors General and officers holding equivalent positions. Sandhu objected that the revised arrangement had been introduced without informing or consulting the Commission. He further alleged that Garg had assigned responsibilities to himself and altered the work allocation of officers who were senior or equivalent in rank. According to Sandhu, similar decisions had been taken previously when Garg was serving as Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration).

Sandhu also maintained that the changes were made despite repeated verbal and written instructions against implementing such decisions without prior discussion or approval from the Commission. He cited Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and requested appropriate action.

Joshi raised comparable concerns in his separate letter to the Cabinet Secretary. He alleged that Garg had revised the allocation of responsibilities without consulting the Commission or informing him. Joshi also stated that he was unable to obtain the relevant file from the Administration Division when he sought access to the documents. Joshi referred to the earlier instructions requiring consultation and approval before making such changes and similarly alleged that the action was inconsistent with the provisions of the 2023 Act.

The decision by both Commissioners to approach the Cabinet Secretary individually drew attention to the sensitive nature of the dispute, which involved the internal functioning of a constitutional institution. However, a note prepared within the Cabinet Secretariat cautioned against taking action without an official communication representing the Election Commission as a whole.

The file note observed that the letters had been submitted by the Commissioners in their individual capacities and could not be treated as formal communications from the entire Commission. It also warned that intervention at that stage might be inappropriate and could be interpreted as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body.

The note recommended acknowledging both communications and forwarding copies to senior officials in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), including the Establishment Officer, as well as the Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. It suggested retaining the matter on record for possible consideration in future decisions concerning Garg, an All India Services officer appointed through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. Cabinet Secretary Somanathan acknowledged both letters on August 5, 2026. In his response to Sandhu, he confirmed receipt of the July 29 communication concerning Gargs functioning in the Commission. A similar acknowledgement was sent to Joshi, with copies marked to senior DoPT officials and the Chief Election Commissioners office. The documents released under the RTI Act do not clarify whether any investigation, disciplinary proceedings or other action followed the acknowledgements.

The disclosed records also include the administrative orders underlying the dispute. An order dated July 28 stated that Garg would temporarily oversee the work assigned to Yeturu during his leave, covering the period from July 27 to August 9. Another order issued that day revised the distribution of responsibilities among senior ECI officers. The RTI application was submitted on September 24 by retired Commodore Lokesh K. Batra, who requested copies of the Commissioners letters, information about the Cabinet Secretariats response and relevant internal file notes. The Cabinet Secretariat subsequently supplied 14 pages of documents after the prescribed fee was paid.

The records confirm that Sandhu and Joshi separately raised objections with the Cabinet Secretary, that their letters were formally acknowledged and that the communications were circulated to the relevant officials. However, the available documents do not establish whether the allegations were examined further or what conclusions, if any, were reached.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from NDTV.