NEW DELHI — Internal administrative friction within the Election Commission of India has surfaced following disclosures that two sitting Election Commissioners separately lodged formal complaints with Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan regarding unauthorized portfolio reallocations by a senior secretariat official.
Official records reveal that Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi submitted parallel written communications objecting to administrative orders issued by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, characterizing the unilateral work redistribution as a breach of statutory protocol.
Key Takeaways
-
Formal Objections Filed: Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi separately wrote to the Cabinet Secretary challenging unilateral portfolio realignments within the poll body’s administrative wing.
-
Procedural Violations Cited: The Commissioners highlighted non-compliance with the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act of 2023, asserting that major internal restructuring was executed without Commission authorization or prior review.
-
File Access Refused: Dr. Vivek Joshi formally reported that administrative personnel withheld the underlying file when he requested documentation regarding the work allocation order.
-
Cabinet Secretariat Position: The executive branch acknowledged the communications but refrained from direct intervention, citing the need to preserve the constitutional independence of the election authority.
Unilateral Reorganization and Administrative Dispute
The controversy stems from administrative directives issued when Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg briefly assumed temporary charge of the Administration Division during the leave of a fellow senior officer. Shortly after taking charge, Garg issued an order revising duties and portfolio assignments across Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, and Directors General.
In his representation to the Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu noted that the reorganization violated explicit standing instructions:
“This has happened in spite of repeated and explicit oral and written instructions to all concerned officers by the undersigned against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the Commission… The order was issued without discussing or informing the revised allocation of work with the Commission or the undersigned.”
In his accompanying letter, Dr. Vivek Joshi emphasized structural obstacles within the secretariat:
“Furthermore, when the undersigned requested for the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided… The action violated established provisions governing statutory decision-making under the 2023 Act.”
Executive Determination and Constitutional Safeguards
Internal notes from the Cabinet Secretariat detail the government’s stance regarding executive boundary lines and constitutional autonomy.
Evaluating the representations, the Secretariat determined that direct administrative intervention remained unviable:
-
Distinction of Capacity: The letters were submitted by the Commissioners in their individual capacities rather than as a collective, formal decision of the full Election Commission.
-
Preservation of Autonomy: Direct executive interference in the internal management of an independent constitutional body would set a concerning operational precedent.
-
Documentation for Service Records: The Cabinet Secretariat formally acknowledged the letters and forwarded copies to the Department of Personnel and Training and the Chief Election Commissioner’s office to be placed on record for future administrative decisions concerning the officer.
