The Secretariat concluded that separate letters from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi could not be treated as a formal communication from the three-member poll panel. Acting without such authorisation, it reasoned, could constitute executive interference in an independent constitutional institution.
The decision emerged from documents supplied under the Right to Information Act to retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra. The correspondence identifies the officer as Maneesh Garg, a senior deputy election commissioner, and details objections to his handling of administrative responsibilities in July.
Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, seeking action over an order issued by Garg the previous day. They alleged that he had redistributed responsibilities among senior officers without consulting the Commission or obtaining the approval required under its procedures.
An internal note dated August 4 said the commissioners’ concerns deserved serious consideration but did not amount to the institutional position of the Election Commission. It warned that action by the Cabinet Secretariat at that stage could be regarded as interference with the constitutional body’s functioning.
The Secretariat also observed that Garg’s appointment by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet did not make his day-to-day conduct a matter for unilateral executive supervision. Once posted to the Election Commission, he was subject to the body’s applicable rules and administrative arrangements.
The note referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision requires the Commission to conduct its business unanimously where possible, with differences resolved by majority decision.
The records show that officials initially considered seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s opinion. A note dated August 3 proposed sending him a letter for that purpose. The following day’s assessment instead recommended acknowledging the commissioners’ correspondence and informing Kumar’s office and personnel authorities.
Somanathan sent separate acknowledgements on August 5. Copies were marked to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the principal private secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. There is no confirmation in the disclosed correspondence that Kumar subsequently responded or initiated proceedings against Garg.
The Secretariat said the papers should be placed on record with personnel authorities so the matter could be considered in future decisions concerning the officer. That step stopped short of the disciplinary action sought by the commissioners.
The dispute originated when Garg took temporary responsibility for the Election Commission’s administration division while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave between July 27 and August 9. Within hours of taking charge, Garg issued a revised distribution of work on July 28.
According to the commissioners’ letters, the order affected senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and officials of comparable rank. They alleged that the redistribution disregarded repeated oral and written instructions requiring consultation and approval before such changes.
Joshi additionally complained that the Administration Division did not provide a relevant file when he requested it. Both commissioners questioned whether the order complied with the statutory framework governing decisions by the Commission. The correspondence itself does not establish misconduct by Garg.
The controversy also raised questions about responsibility for electoral-roll administration and the allocation of oversight among senior officials. The particular allocation changes were contested because of their potential implications for administrative control, although an order’s issue did not necessarily mean its provisions had taken effect.
The Election Commission stated on September 26 that the work-redistribution orders were never implemented after directions from Sandhu and Joshi. It maintained that the commissioners’ letters concerned the conduct of a deputed officer, rather than a policy decision or the functioning of the Commission’s information technology division.
The Commission also said oversight of the information technology division by the relevant deputy election commissioner had not been withdrawn. The disputed work allocation was set aside on July 30, following objections from the two commissioners.
Garg, a 1996-batch IAS officer of the Himachal Pradesh cadre, had been posted to the Election Commission through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet with effect from September 2, 2024. The RTI disclosure includes the commissioners’ letters, internal notes and the Secretariat’s acknowledgements.
