2 Election Commissioners Complained Against Senior Panel Officer, RTI Shows

In an unusual escalation of differences within the Election Commission of India (ECI), two Election Commissioners, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi, wrote separate letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29, 2026, objecting to the conduct of a senior Commission official and seeking appropriate action, records released under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show.

The letters, addressed to the Cabinet Secretary, concerned senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and an order he issued revising the allocation of work among senior officers. The two Commissioners alleged that the changes were made without prior discussion with the Commission or the officers concerned.

The development comes amid questions about differences within the poll body. The Indian Express reported on September 23 that two Election Commissioners had objected on record 14 times in 10 months to steps involving the addition of new voters and deletion of names from electoral rolls, and had approached the Cabinet Secretary over concerns about the integrity of the voter database.

The correspondence disclosed under this RTI application, however, relates to the separate issue of work allocation.

In his letter, Sandhu said Garg was assigned additional charge of the Administration Division on July 28, during the leave of Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu. Within hours of taking charge as link officer, Garg issued an order revising the allocation of work among Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, Director Generals and equivalent officers.

Read | Glitches In Over 10,000 Voter Entries In UP Seat, 2 Poll Officials Suspended

The order was issued "without discussing or informing the revised allocation of work with the Commission or the undersigned", Sandhu wrote.

He alleged that Garg had allocated work to himself as well as to officers senior or equivalent to him, and said similar orders had been issued earlier when Garg was working as Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration).

"This has happened in spite of repeated and explicit oral and written instructions to all concerned officers by the undersigned against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the Commission," Sandhu wrote. He alleged that the action 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 sought "appropriate action".

Joshi, in his separate letter, raised similar objections. He said Garg had issued the revised work-allocation order without discussing it with the Commission or informing him. Joshi also alleged that he was denied access to the relevant file when he sought it from the Administration Division.

"Furthermore, when the undersigned requested for the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided," Joshi wrote.

He too cited repeated instructions against such action without prior discussion or approval of the Commission and alleged a violation of the 2023 Act.

The fact that both Commissioners addressed their complaints directly to the Cabinet Secretary is notable because the dispute concerned the functioning of a constitutional body. A Cabinet Secretariat file note on the matter acknowledged the seriousness of the communications but cautioned against intervention in the absence of an official communication from the Commission as a whole.

The note said the letters had been sent by the Commissioners in their individual capacities and "cannot be seen as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole". It added that action at that stage could be inappropriate and "may also be construed as interference in the functioning of the Constitutional Body".

The note recommended that the Cabinet Secretary acknowledge both letters and send copies to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Establishment Officer and the Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. It said the matter could be placed on record for future decision-making concerning Garg, an All India Services officer and an appointee of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.

Read | Opinion: SIR, The Election Commission, And A Trust Deficit

The Cabinet Secretary acknowledged both letters on August 5, 2026. In his reply to Sandhu, Somanathan wrote: "This is to acknowledge the receipt of your D.O. letter dated 29th July, 2026 regarding the working of Shri Maneesh Garg, IAS (HP:1996), Sr. Deputy Election Commissioner in the Commission." A similar reply was sent to Joshi, with copies marked to senior DoPT officials and the Chief Election Commissioner's office.

The RTI response does not establish whether any inquiry or further action followed the acknowledgements.

The ECI's records included in the disclosure show that Garg was assigned additional charge of the Administration Division during Yeturu's leave. An office order dated July 28 stated that the work allocated to Yeturu would be looked after by Garg as an interim arrangement from July 27 to August 9. A separate order issued the same day revised the work distribution among Commission officials.

The RTI application was filed on September 24 by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.), who sought copies of the Commissioners' communications, details of the steps taken by the Cabinet Secretariat and the relevant file notings. The Cabinet Secretariat provided 14 pages of documents after the applicant paid the prescribed fee.

The records establish that the two Commissioners formally raised their objections with the Cabinet Secretary and that the letters were acknowledged and circulated to the officials concerned. They do not establish what further action, if any, was taken on the allegations.