Weeks after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had written to the Cabinet Secretary raising concerns over the unilateral functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), a Right to Information (RTI) response has revealed the Cabinet Secretary’s position on the matter.
The RTI response, obtained by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd), shows that the Cabinet Secretary acknowledged the Commissioners’ complaints but decided against direct intervention, citing that the letters written by the two commissioners were written in their "individual capacity" and not as the Commission, and that it would be inappropriate for the "executive to interfere in an independent Constitutional body."
According to the response, the two Commissioners wrote to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan in July 2026, alleging that senior Election Commission official Maneesh Garg had bypassed established procedures and issued orders reallocating responsibilities among senior officers without consulting the Commission.
The RTI response also included copies of the letters written by the two Commissioners and the Cabinet Secretary’s acknowledgement of them.
The RTI application was filed a day after The Indian Express published a report on 23 September stating that Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months to decisions concerning the addition and deletion of voters.
The report also mentioned that the Commissioners had approached the Cabinet Secretary.
What the Two ECs Wrote to the Cabinet Secretary
Two separate letters written by Sandhu and Joshi on 29 July 2026 raised concerns about the decisions made by Maneesh Garg, a 1996-batch IAS officer serving as Senior Deputy Election Commissioner.
According to their complaints, Garg, on 28 July 2025, assigned additional responsibility for the Election Commission's Administration Division without consulting the Commissioners.
The division was ordinarily headed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who was on leave from 27 July to 9 August. According to the Commissioners' letters, another Deputy Election Commissioner, Sanjay Kumar, was Yeturu's designated link officer.
However, Garg was assigned the additional charge on 28 July.
Within hours of assuming responsibility, Garg allegedly reallocated work among Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, Directors General and officers of equivalent rank without discussing it with the Commission. Sandhu's letter alleged that Garg had reallocated work to himself, which he had also allegedly done previously as the Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration)
'Requested Files Not Sent': Joshi's Allegations
Along with similar allegations made by Sandhu, Joshi also alleged that a relevant file he had requested from the Administration Division was not provided to him.
'Inappropriate To Interfere': How the Cabinet Secretary Reacted
In one of its first responses, the Cabinet Secretary hinted at seeking the opinion of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on the matter.
'In this connection, we may request the Chief Election Commissioner for his opinion on the issue,' the noting stated.
In subsequent responses, however, the Cabinet Secretary appeared to have taken a different stance.
Referring to Section 18 of the 2023 Act, the Secretary said that the Election Commission functions as a 'multi-member constitutional body in which decisions must be taken unanimously wherever possible or according to the majority opinion in cases of disagreement'.
'Thus, it is evident that the CEC and ECs are equals and any decision is to be taken either unanimously or by the majority,' the letter stated.
The Cabinet Secretary, however, refused to intervene, stating that 'the Election Commission was constitutionally insulated from executive interference to ensure its independence'.
It further said that the two letters had been written by the two Commissioners in their individual capacities and not as an 'official communication' from the Commission.
'The above communications are from the ECs 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 letter stated.
The letter further noted that, even though Garg had been appointed through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, he was governed by the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission.
The Cabinet Secretary said that, since it was not an official communication from the Commission, treating it as such would be construed as interference in the 'functioning of a constitutional body'.