Two Election Commissioners Complain to Cabinet Secretary Against Senior IAS Officer
An unprecedented administrative friction has surfaced within the country's apex electoral watchdog, as official Right to Information (RTI) records reveal that two serving Election Commissioners formally petitioned the Union Cabinet Secretary against an apex bureaucrat inside the Election Commission of India (ECI). According to a 14-page document disclosure obtained by prominent transparency activist Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd), Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi authored separate letters on July 29, 2026, to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan, registering sharp protests against Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of the 1996 Himachal Pradesh cadre. The commissioners accused the senior bureaucrat of overstepping institutional boundaries by arbitrarily restructuring the work distribution of top commission functionaries without prior collegiate deliberation, bringing governance friction out into the open after earlier disclosures had highlighted recurring disagreements over voter additions, deletions, and electoral database reliability.
Unilateral Bureaucratic Shake-Up: How an Interim Charge Triggered Legal Objections
The administrative flashpoint unfolded when Garg was assigned temporary additional charge of the ECI's Administration Department on July 28, 2026, during the approved leave of Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who was away from July 27 through August 9. Within hours of assuming responsibilities as the interim link officer, Garg promulgated an official order revising key operational portfolios across Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, Directors General, and equivalent ranks, allegedly allocating crucial mandates to himself and peer officials without seeking consensus from the Commission. In his grievance, Dr. Sandhu emphasized that this sudden redistribution defied repeated oral and written instructions prohibiting unilateral restructuring, noting that similar deviations had transpired during Garg's earlier tenure as Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration). Elevating the dispute, Dr. Joshi reported that administrative staff subsequently refused to furnish the relevant movement file when he demanded scrutiny of the order, prompting both commissioners to formally allege a direct breach of Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure of Office) Act, 2023.
Cabinet Secretariat’s Delicate Balancing Act: Preserving Constitutional Autonomy
The direct escalation of internal dissent to the Cabinet Secretariat presented the central government with a delicate administrative challenge regarding executive intervention in an autonomous constitutional institution. An internal file note formulated within the Cabinet Secretariat recognized the gravity of the communication but cautioned against direct intervention, emphasizing that the letters had been submitted by the two commissioners in their individual capacities rather than as a unified, formal communication on behalf of the ECI as a collegiate institution. Highlighting that sudden administrative interference could be construed as encroaching upon constitutional autonomy, the note recommended noting the matter on record for future administrative assessments regarding Garg, whose posting falls under the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan formally acknowledged receipt of both representations on August 5, 2026, circulating 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, while RTI disclosures confirm that records remain silent on whether formal disciplinary proceedings have since been initiated.
