Election Commission, internal dissent and executive independence: What the RTI documents show

An RTI disclosure has exposed how the Cabinet Secretariat handled complaints by two Election Commissioners against a senior official, raising questions about internal accountability and the independence of India's poll body.

Two Election Commissioners have approached the Cabinet Secretary with complaints about a senior Election Commission official, and the government has acknowledged the letters but declined to initiate direct action, saying it would be inappropriate to interfere with the functioning of a constitutional body.

The details were obtained through a Right to Information application by transparency activist and retired Commodore Lokesh K. Batra, revealing the paper trail of how the Cabinet Secretariat handled the correspondence.

But the issue raises deeper questions: how can a constitutional institution safeguard its independence while also ensuring accountability within its administrative framework?

How did the dispute begin?

On 29 July 2026, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan, complaining of the conduct of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg.

The complaints followed a work-allocation order issued on 28 July, whereby Garg was given additional charge of the Administration Division while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was away on leave until 9 August.

According to the complaints summarised in the Cabinet Secretariat's internal notes, Garg unilaterally altered the allocation of responsibilities among senior officials without consulting the Commission or the affected officers.

Sandhu objected to these changes taking place without prior discussion, while Joshi alleged that a file he had requested from the Administration Division was withheld from him.

The commissioners said the order had been issued, they said, despite repeated oral and written instructions to the contrary, including that no such changes should be made without prior discussion or Commission approval. They referred to 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.

These were allegations made by the commissioners; the complaints and the subsequent RTI disclosure do not in themselves establish that the officer violated the law.

What did the RTI reveal?

The RTI application, which was filed by Batra on 24 September, sought information on the complaints and the actions taken by the Cabinet Secretariat.

The response, dated 19 October, confirmed that the complaints had been received, and attached the internal notes on how the letters were dealt with.

A note dated 3 August proposed seeking the opinion of the Chief Election Commissioner on the complaints, and a subsequent note, dated 4 August, examined whether the Cabinet Secretariat should take direct action on the letters.

The Secretariat's concern was that the letters had been submitted by two commissioners in their individual capacities rather than as a formal communication from the Election Commission as a whole.

The note stated that the complaints needed to be taken seriously, but added that action in the absence of an official communication from the Commission as a whole would be inappropriate and could be seen as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body.

On 5 August, the Cabinet Secretary acknowledged the two letters, and copies were marked to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), its Establishment Officer and the office of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The issue was also recorded for consideration in future decisions concerning Garg.

The documents thus confirm how the Cabinet Secretariat handled the correspondence, but not whether the allegations were substantiated or whether a later internal review was conducted.

Why did the commissioners approach the Cabinet Secretary?

The choice of the Cabinet Secretary as a complainant rather than the Commission's internal channels is a critical part of the episode.

The Election Commission is a constitutional body whose independence from executive interference is essential to its ability to administer elections. It has its own set of laws, rules and procedures relating to internal functioning.

The Cabinet Secretariat's view was that the letters, important as they were, were individual communications rather than a formal statement from the Commission as a whole, and that direct intervention would be inappropriate.

This is a crucial distinction: the Secretariat did not establish that the complaints were false or that Garg had been exonerated of wrongdoing, only that it had chosen not to initiate direct action on the basis of the correspondence it had received.

The RTI response also confirms that the letters were forwarded to the CEC's office, but the records disclosed do not establish whether the CEC then initiated a formal inquiry or whether the DoPT took any action.

Whether the matter was investigated within the Commission's internal framework remains an important issue for further reporting.

Why does the IT division matter?

The dispute also attracted wider attention because the work-allocation order related to the routing of files associated with the IT division of the Election Commission.

In September, The Indian Express reported wider disagreements within the Commission relating to electoral-roll management, access to voter databases and the handling of administrative decisions.

The reports mentioned objections raised by Sandhu and Joshi to a number of decisions and procedures, and the Election Commission disputed claims that these disagreements affected the functioning of the Commission.

The link is relevant because the management of electoral rolls requires well-defined responsibilities and reliable procedures for administration. Alterations in reporting arrangements can affect how files circulate between officials and how decisions are monitored.

However, the July dispute over work allocation should not be conflated with the wider controversy over the electoral-roll software. The RTI disclosure does not establish that voter data was tampered with or that any elector was improperly removed from the rolls.

The administrative dispute and the broader questions concerning electoral-roll management need to be examined separately.

What did the Election Commission say?

In a statement issued on 26 September, the Election Commission said the contested work-redistribution orders had not been implemented in accordance with directions from the two commissioners.

The Commission also said the oversight of the IT division had never actually been withdrawn, and that the correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary related to the functioning of an officer on deputation rather than an IT policy decision.

The Commission stated that a committee headed by a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner and including an independent expert from an IIT or IIIT would review ECINet, its digital platform. It also said that future initiatives involving IT modules and portals would be discussed by a committee of officers before being presented to the Commission for approval.

These statements outline the Commission's position, and provide context for the dispute. They do not, in themselves, establish that every concern mentioned in the complaints was resolved.

The Commission's response is essential to the understanding of the episode: while the commissioners complained about the order, the ECI asserted that the changes were never implemented.

Independence versus accountability

The RTI disclosure raises two important principles: the necessity of institutional independence and the need for internal accountability.

The Election Commission must be able to carry out its constitutional responsibilities free from inappropriate executive interference.

Independence, however, does not eliminate the need for internal accountability, including for clear rules, documented decisions and methods of examining concerns raised by members of the institution itself.

These principles need not be at odds: a constitutional body can maintain its independence while ensuring that any administrative disputes are examined through appropriate procedures and that the outcome is documented.

In this instance, the Cabinet Secretariat declined to take direct action, citing the Commission's constitutional status and the fact that the letters were not a communication from the institution as a whole. The Election Commission in turn stated that the contested order was never implemented.

What the correspondence does not establish is whether the commissioners' concerns had received a substantive internal review and what the final administrative outcome was.

What the RTI establishes — and what remains unanswered

The RTI disclosure confirms the documented account of how the Cabinet Secretariat handled the complaints. It establishes that the letters were received, considered and acknowledged, and that copies were sent to the CEC's office and the DoPT. It does not, by itself, prove misconduct by Garg, establish any wrongdoing by the CEC or demonstrate irregularities in the process of election.

The central question is a procedural one: how should concerns raised by members of an independent constitutional body be examined in a manner that does not compromise on the body's autonomy?

The answer lies not only in where complaints are sent but also in whether there are mechanisms in place to review them and document the outcome.

Ultimately, the significance of this RTI disclosure lies in the question it raises. The public now has a clearer understanding of how the government handled the letters. Whether the concerns raised by the commissioners were adequately addressed remains a separate question, which further records and responses from the Election Commission may help to answer.