Two Election Commissioners Raise Complaints Against Senior Election Commission Official, RTI Documents Reveal
New Delhi, October 23, 2026: Two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, reportedly wrote separate letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29, 2026, raising concerns over the conduct of senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The letters, disclosed through a Right to Information (RTI) response, highlight disagreements within the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the allocation of responsibilities among senior officials.
According to the documents, the complaints centred on an order issued by Garg revising the distribution of work among senior officers of the Election Commission. Both commissioners alleged that the changes were made without prior consultation with the Commission or the officers concerned.
In his letter, Sandhu stated that Garg had been given additional charge of the Administration Division on July 28, 2026, during the leave of Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu. Within hours of assuming the temporary responsibility, Garg reportedly issued an order changing the allocation of work among Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, Director Generals and officers holding equivalent positions.
Sandhu objected to the manner in which the decision was taken, alleging that Garg had assigned responsibilities to himself and to officers senior or equivalent to him without obtaining the necessary prior discussion or approval from the Commission. He also pointed out that similar orders had allegedly been issued earlier when Garg was serving as Deputy Election Commissioner in charge of administration.
In his communication, Sandhu referred to previous oral and written instructions directing officials not to make such changes without prior consultation or approval. He alleged that the revised work-allocation order violated 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.
Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi raised similar concerns in a separate letter to the Cabinet Secretary. Joshi alleged that Garg had issued the revised work-allocation order without discussing the matter with the Commission or informing him beforehand.
Joshi also raised an additional concern, stating that when he requested access to the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided to him. He referred to the instructions against making such administrative changes without prior discussion or approval and, like Sandhu, alleged a violation of the 2023 Act.
The decision by both commissioners to approach the Cabinet Secretary directly brought the internal disagreement to the attention of senior government officials. However, the subsequent handling of their complaints reflected the institutional sensitivities involved in matters concerning the functioning of a constitutional body.
A file note prepared by the Cabinet Secretariat acknowledged the seriousness of the letters but observed that they had been submitted by the commissioners in their individual capacities. It stated that the communications could not be treated as a formal representation from the Election Commission as a whole. The note also cautioned that intervening at that stage could be inappropriate and might be viewed as interference in the functioning of a constitutional institution.
The note recommended acknowledging both letters and circulating copies to senior officials, including the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Establishment Officer and the Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. It suggested that the matter be kept on record for future consideration concerning Garg, an All India Services officer appointed through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.
Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan acknowledged both letters on August 5, 2026. In his response to Sandhu, he confirmed receipt of the communication regarding Garg’s working in the Election Commission. A similar acknowledgement was sent to Joshi, with copies marked to senior DoPT officials and the Chief Election Commissioner’s office.
The RTI disclosure also included official orders concerning the temporary assignment of administrative responsibilities to Garg during Yeturu’s leave. One order stated that Garg would look after Yeturu’s allocated work as an interim arrangement from July 27 to August 9, 2026. Another order issued on July 28 revised the distribution of responsibilities among Commission officials.
The documents were released following an RTI application filed on September 24, 2026, by retired Commodore Lokesh K. Batra. He had sought copies of the commissioners’ letters, details of the action taken by the Cabinet Secretariat and the relevant file notings. The Cabinet Secretariat provided 14 pages of documents after the prescribed fee was paid.
The disclosures come amid wider questions about disagreements within the Election Commission. A separate report by The Indian Express on September 23, 2026, had stated that two Election Commissioners had raised objections on record on 14 occasions over a period of 10 months concerning measures involving the addition of voters and the deletion of names from electoral rolls. That earlier reporting concerned electoral-roll issues, whereas the correspondence disclosed in this RTI response relates specifically to the allocation of work among senior officials.
Importantly, the RTI documents confirm that the two commissioners formally raised their objections and that their letters were acknowledged and circulated to relevant officials. However, the records do not establish whether a formal inquiry was initiated or whether any further action was taken in response to the allegations.
News source: Information for this article was gathered from a variety of reliable news outlets.
