In a major revelation concerning the internal governance of India’s apex electoral body, documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act disclose that the Cabinet Secretariat forwarded sensitive complaint letters written by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi directly to Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
Submitted separately on 29 July, the commissioners’ communications raised serious objections regarding an administrative work-allocation order issued by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg without prior consultation. While the Secretariat acknowledged receipt on 5 August, it refrained from executive intervention, recording that acting on individual representations rather than a formal institutional missive could be “construed as interference” in an independent constitutional body. Meanwhile, the Election Commission maintained that the dispute involved an officer on deputation rather than policy, confirming that the contested re-allocation was never implemented.
Paper Trail Details
The official records secured by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)—trace the precise administrative handling of the 14-page dossier comprising the commissioners’ 10-page representations, file notings, and official replies.
Internal file notings revealed that on 3 August, the Secretariat initially considered seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s opinion on the matter. However, an appraisal on 4 August cautioned against direct executive meddling, observing that the letters were submitted in the commissioners’ “individual capacity and not a formal communication from the Election Commission of India”.
Consequently, the Cabinet Secretariat limited its formal action to issuing acknowledgements to Sandhu and Joshi, endorsing copies to DoPT Secretary, the Establishment Officer, and the Principal Private Secretary to the CEC. Emphasising institutional independence, notings reiterated that any intrusive measure by the central executive into the multi-member constitutional watchdog could undermine its autonomy.
Origins of the Friction
The discord was ignited on 28 July, when Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg—temporarily assigned additional charge of the Administration Division—issued a unilateral work-allocation order restructuring official roles, including the routing of files from the Information Technology division.
The commissioners contested this move, pointing out that vital decisions were taken without collective deliberations and invoking Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the 2023 Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, which mandate consensus or majority decisions within the Commission. Joshi specifically noted that related files were withheld upon request.
Addressing public concerns over institutional rupture, the Election Commission issued a clarification stating that the correspondence “was not related to any policy matter of the Commission or IT division but related to working of an officer on deputation,” ensuring that routine IT oversight and roll transparency remained fully intact.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At the very heart of a vibrant, participatory democracy lies the public’s unwavering faith in its constitutional watchdogs.
The Election Commission of India is not merely an administrative apparatus; it is the moral compass of democratic choice, built upon mutual respect, transparent dialogue, and collegiate decision-making among its members. While the Cabinet Secretariat’s restraint rightly safeguarded the boundary between the executive and an autonomous body, the emergence of internal fissures within such an esteemed institution signals an urgent need for deeper empathy, active listening, and collegial harmony within its ranks.
Transparent institutions do not weaken when internal disagreements surface; rather, their true strength is revealed in how constructively and kindly those differences are reconciled. How can our apex institutions better cultivate open dialogue and collegiate harmony to safeguard public trust in democratic governance?
Also Read: Om Birla Says CEC Gyanesh Kumar Removal Motion Will Be Examined As Per Rules
