2 of 3 treated as lack of consensus: Cabinet Sec takes no action on two ECs’ complaints

An RTI reply further revealed the administrative inaction in taking action on complaints made by the two Election Commissioners against Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg to the Cabinet Secretary, who noted the complaints but treated them as two separate complaints on the same matter, thereby making them appear to lack majority support and treating any action on them as interference in the functioning of the constitutional body.

The disclosure, obtained by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.), comes weeks after The Indian Express reported growing disquiet within the ECI over changes to administrative responsibilities linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The two commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had written separately to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29, raising objections to changes in work allocation that they alleged had been made without the Commission’s knowledge or approval.

According to the RTI response, Somanathan acknowledged receipt of both letters on August 5 and decided to seek the opinion of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, although it remains unclear whether the CEC subsequently responded to the Cabinet Secretariat.

In his communication, the Cabinet Secretary observed that the letters had been submitted by the commissioners in their individual capacities and could not, therefore, be regarded as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole.

He nevertheless acknowledged the statutory framework governing decision-making within the ECI, noting that Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, provides for decisions by unanimity, where possible, or by majority when differences arise.

The two commissioners’ letters concerned an order issued by Garg shortly after he assumed additional responsibility for the Administration Division on July 28, while the division’s regular incumbent, Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, was on leave.

The order reportedly redistributed work among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors-general and equivalent officers, without prior consultation with the commissioners.

Sandhu alleged that Garg had allocated responsibilities to himself and to officers senior or equivalent to him, despite repeated oral and written instructions against making such changes without prior discussion or approval. He also pointed out that neither Yeturu nor Garg’s designated link officer, Sanjay Kumar, had issued comparable orders before Garg assumed the additional charge.

Joshi raised substantially similar objections, adding that a request to inspect the relevant file had been denied by the Administration Division.