Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar with Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi. File
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
Days after two Election Commissioners (ECs) S.S. Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan on July 29 regarding the working of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, the secretariat sent an acknowledgment to both with a copy to Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar for his “information”, a Right to Information (RTI) response has revealed.
The Cabinet Secretariat noted that the letters were from the ECs in their individual capacity and while needed to be taken with seriousness, cannot be taken as formal communication from the Election Commission of India (ECI) as a whole. In the absence of any official communication from the commission any action can be construed as “interference”.
The RTI plea was filed by Commodore (retired) Lokesh Batra.
Work allocation
A Cabinet Secretariat file noting dated August 3 says both the ECs had stated that Mr. Garg, after assuming the charge as link officer of DEC (Administration), issued an order regarding work allocation of equivalent and senior officers to him without discussing the revised work allocation with the commission or the officers concerned. Further, the ECs stated that this happened despite repeated oral and written instructions to all officers against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the commission.
“In this connection, we may request the Chief Election Commissioner for his opinion on the issue. Accordingly, a draft D.O. is put up for approval, please,” it said.
However, the very next day, that is August 4, the file notes that “the commission is a constitutional body and is insulated from executive interference by design to ensure that it functions independently and in a transparent manner”.
“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”.
It further says the ECs have sent these communications for appropriate action. However, “in the absence of any official communication from the commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate. It may also be construed as interference in the functioning of the constitutional body”.
And hence, it will be appropriate to send acknowledgement to both ECs with a copy to PPS to the CEC for “information of CEC”.
A copy was also marked to be sent to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training since Mr. Garg was an All-India Service officer as well as ACC appointee.
“Draft DO may be put up accordingly”, it said.
Subsequently, on August 5, Mr. Somanathan wrote to both the ECs acknowledging the letters with a copy to PPS to the CEC.
It was though not clear from the RTI responses whether Mr. Gyanesh Kumar had in any manner responded to or acknowledged the information received from the Cabinet Secretariat.
Published – October 22, 2026 10:16 pm IST
