Differences over administrative responsibilities within the Election Commission of India have come to light through documents obtained under the Right to Information Act. According to the records, Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi sent separate letters to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan on July 29, 2026, raising concerns about the conduct of senior deputy election commissioner Manish Garg.
Both commissioners objected to an order that revised the allocation of work among senior officials. They alleged that the changes were introduced without prior consultation with the Commission or adequate communication with the officials concerned. The two commissioners sought appropriate action, arguing that administrative decisions of this nature should not be taken without the required consultation or approval.
What triggered the dispute?
According to the documents, Garg was given additional charge of the administration department on July 28, 2026, while deputy election commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave. Within hours of taking over the responsibilities as the link officer, Garg issued an order revising the distribution of work among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, director generals and officers of equivalent rank.
Sandhu objected to the manner in which the order was issued. In his letter to the Cabinet Secretary, he stated that the revised allocation had been introduced without discussion with the Election Commission or prior communication to him about the changes.
Sandhu further alleged that Garg had assigned responsibilities to himself and to officers of equivalent or higher seniority. He also referred to similar orders issued when Garg was serving as deputy election commissioner in charge of administration.
According to Sandhu's letter, officials had repeatedly been instructed, both orally and in writing, not to take such steps without prior consultation with or approval from the Commission. He argued that the latest order had been issued despite those instructions.
Sandhu cited 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, alleging that the action was inconsistent with the provisions of the law. He asked the Cabinet Secretary to take appropriate action in the matter.
These statements represent the objections raised by Sandhu in his letter. The documents released under the RTI application do not, by themselves, establish a final finding of wrongdoing against Garg.
Vivek Joshi raises similar objections
Election Commissioner Dr. Vivek Joshi also wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary, raising concerns similar to those expressed by Sandhu. Joshi objected to the revised work-allocation order, alleging that it had been issued without consultation with the Commission and without informing him.
Joshi raised another concern regarding access to official records. In his letter, he stated that when he requested a file related to the administration department, it was not provided to him.
He also referred to repeated instructions that administrative action of this nature should not be taken without prior consultation with or approval from the Commission. Like Sandhu, Joshi cited the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act and questioned the procedure followed in issuing the revised order.
The two letters therefore raised concerns about both the process used to redistribute responsibilities and the authority under which the changes were made. By approaching the Cabinet Secretary directly, the commissioners placed their objections on record outside the Commission's immediate administrative chain.
What did the Cabinet Secretariat say?
The file noting available through the RTI response indicates that the Cabinet Secretariat recognised the seriousness of the communications but advised caution before intervening. The note stated that the letters had been sent by the two commissioners in their individual capacities and could not be treated as a formal communication on behalf of the Election Commission as a whole.
The note also suggested that intervention at that stage could be inappropriate unless an official communication was received from the Commission collectively. It warned that action taken without such a communication could be viewed as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body.
The Secretariat's file suggested acknowledging receipt of both letters and forwarding copies to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Establishment Officer and the Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner.
It also recommended keeping the matter on record so that the complaints could be considered if a relevant decision concerning Garg arose in the future. The available note, however, does not establish that the allegations were formally investigated or that any disciplinary decision was taken.
Cabinet Secretary acknowledged the letters on August 5
The documents show that Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan acknowledged receipt of both letters on August 5, 2026. In his response to Sandhu, Somanathan referred to the communication dated July 29 concerning the functioning of Manish Garg, an IAS officer serving as senior deputy election commissioner.
A similar acknowledgement was sent to Joshi. Copies of the correspondence were also forwarded to senior officials in the Department of Personnel and Training and to the office of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The acknowledgement confirms that the complaints were received and circulated to the relevant offices. However, the RTI response does not clarify whether the matter led to a formal inquiry, further administrative proceedings or any action against Garg.
Consequently, the available records establish that objections were raised and formally communicated to the Cabinet Secretariat, but they do not reveal the final outcome.
Who is Manish Garg?
According to the records, Manish Garg is an Indian Administrative Service officer serving as senior deputy election commissioner. His service details are recorded as Himachal Pradesh cadre, 1996 batch. His appointment was made through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.
The dispute centres on two office orders issued on July 28. One established an interim arrangement for the work assigned to Bhanu Prakash Yeturu during his leave from July 27 to August 9. A separate order revised the distribution of responsibilities among officials of the Election Commission.
The commissioners' objections focused on the process followed in issuing the revised work-allocation order. The documents released under the RTI Act do not contain a final determination on the allegations against Garg.
Who filed the RTI application?
The application was filed on September 24 by retired Commodore Lokesh K. Batra. He sought copies of the correspondence between the two election commissioners and the Cabinet Secretariat, details of the steps taken by the Secretariat, and the relevant file notings.
After the prescribed fee was paid, the Cabinet Secretariat provided 14 pages of documents. These records contain the two commissioners' objections, the Secretariat's internal assessment and the acknowledgements sent to the commissioners.
The documents also show that the correspondence was shared with relevant officials. However, they do not establish what further action, if any, followed the acknowledgements.
What do the documents establish?
The RTI disclosure sheds light on an administrative dispute within the Election Commission concerning the allocation of responsibilities among senior officers. It establishes that Sandhu and Joshi formally raised objections to the process followed in issuing the revised order and sought appropriate action.
At the same time, the records do not establish a final finding against Garg or clarify whether a formal investigation was conducted. The status of any subsequent proceedings therefore remains unclear from the documents made available under the RTI application.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
