New Delhi: A Right to Information (RTI) response has revealed that the Cabinet Secretariat acknowledged letters written by two Election Commissioners against a senior poll official and forwarded copies to the office of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar for his "information" — a disclosure that adds a new layer to the ongoing controversy over internal differences within the Election Commission of India.
The RTI reply, obtained by transparency activist Commodore (retired) Lokesh Batra from the Cabinet Secretariat, relates to letters written on July 29 by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan. The letters raised objections against the working of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg.
According to the documents, the Cabinet Secretariat sent an acknowledgement of the two letters on August 5, with copies marked not only to the secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the department's establishment officer but also to the principal private secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner.
The Hindu reported that the file notings show the secretariat's careful deliberation before acting. A noting dated August 3 says both the Election Commissioners had stated that Garg, after assuming charge as link officer of the Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration) division, issued an order regarding the work allocation of officers equivalent and senior to him without discussing the revised work allocation with the commission or the officers concerned.
The Commissioners' letters stated that this happened despite repeated oral and written instructions to all officers against taking such actions without prior discussion or 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," the August 3 noting said.
However, the very next day, a noting dated August 4 struck a cautionary note. It recorded 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 Cabinet Secretariat's position, as reflected in the documents, was that the communications from Sandhu and Joshi were in their individual capacity and could not be treated as a formal communication from the Election Commission of India as a whole. In the absence of any official communication from the commission, any action by the secretariat could be construed as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body.
A cabinet note on the matter dated August 4 spelt this out explicitly: "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. Although Shri Maneesh Garg has been appointed by the ACC (Appointments Committee of the Cabinet), he is now an officer of the ECI and his work and conduct is to be regulated and monitored by the rules and guidelines of ECI."
The note added: "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. Hence, it would be appropriate to send acknowledgement to both Election Commissioners with a copy to PPS (principal private secretary) to CEC for information of CEC."
Hindustan Times had first reported on October 3 the details of the letters and the fact that they had been forwarded to the DoPT, but the RTI reply now establishes that the CEC's office also received copies. It is not clear whether the CEC responded to the Cabinet Secretariat.
The Telegraph India reported that besides the CEC, copies of the letters were marked to the Department of Personnel and Training and the Establishment Officer "for placing the matter on record" to "enable it to be taken into account in future decision-making regarding the officer".
The dispute had its origins in an order issued by Garg on July 28, a day after he was given additional charge of the Administration Division while deputy election commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave until August 9. The two Commissioners alleged that Garg issued the work-allocation order within hours, covering officers senior or equivalent to him, without consulting them. Both Commissioners cited Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the 2023 CEC/EC Act in their letters.
The disagreement also involved the routing of files from the IT department headed by director general Seema Khanna, which had earlier been routed through deputy election commissioner Sanjay Kumar. Joshi additionally alleged that a file he sought from the Administration Division was not provided.
The letters were part of a wider set of differences between the two Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner over the functioning of the poll panel. The Telegraph India reported that Sandhu and Joshi had expressed at least 14 points of dissent against the commission's actions under Kumar.
The disclosures come amid broader scrutiny of the Election Commission's functioning, including an investigation by The Indian Express into a new IT protocol introduced under Khanna and approved by the commission, which reportedly restricted electoral registration officers' access to the database of electoral rolls, affecting officials responsible for adding or deleting voters' names.
The ECI has denied these claims, maintaining that its decisions were either unanimous or taken by a majority in accordance with the rules.
After the media reports on the letters, a meeting of the full Election Commission — with all three commissioners present — was held on September 26, and a series of reforms to the functioning of the poll panel were announced.
Batra filed the RTI application on September 24, seeking details of the action taken on the letters. The response underscores how the Secretariat navigated the delicate constitutional boundary: acknowledging the communications, placing them on record with the DoPT, and keeping the CEC informed — while deliberately stopping short of any action that could be seen as executive interference in the poll body's affairs.
(Reporting based on The Hindu and Hindustan Times.)