‘Inappropriate’ to act: How Cabinet Secy handled EC letters against deputy Maneesh Garg

Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan had acknowledged letters from the two Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raising concerns over the work of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, while also looping in the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, an RTI response has revealed. 

The Cabinet Secretariat had also noted that letters sent by the two Commissioners in their “individual capacity…cannot be seen as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole,” and decided to seek the CEC’s opinion before taking any action. 

It also decided that without official communication from all three Election Commissioners, any action would be “inappropriate” and seen as “interference”. 

The copies of the letters were accessed by transparency campaigner Commodore Lokesh Batra through RTI. The documents include Somanathan’s acknowledgement of their letters sent on August 5, copying the CEC’s office. 

Sandhu and Joshi’s letters said that within hours of assuming charge as the link officer of the Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration), Garg issued an order regarding work allocation among Deputy Election Commissioners (DECs), Senior DECs and other officers, including himself and officers who were senior to him. The letters also specified that Garg had issued similar orders in the past when he was DEC (Administration). 

They also noted that the regular DEC (Administration) Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who had gone on leave, and the original link officer Sanjay Kumar, had not issued any such orders. Both Sandhu and Joshi said that this had happened in spite of their repeated and explicit oral and written instructions to all officers against taking such actions without prior approval of the Commission, and sought appropriate action against Garg. 

The RTI responses also included internal notings of the Cabinet Secretariat, which said that Joshi and Sandhu’s letters were sent “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.” 

An investigative report published by the Indian Express a month ago on September 23, had revealed an internal rift within the Election Commission of India (ECI). It also talked about these communications from Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary. 

The report by Ritika Chopra had also referred to tensions within the ECI over the functioning of the IT division led by Director General Seema Khanna. The Indian Express reported that on July 28, Maneesh Garg was given additional charge of administration while the regular officer was on leave. The same day, Garg changed the work allocations without consulting the Commission, and even removed senior IAS officer Sanjay Kumar, who had been serving as the Deputy Election Commissioner and was overseeing the IT division’s work till then, the report had said. 

The report said that Sandhu and Joshi found that Garg’s reallocation of work removed necessary oversight of the IT division that they had sought. 

The next day, July 29, both Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary complaining about the work allocation order, noting that it was in violation of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Act, 2023, IE report said. The Act requires that such decisions be made unanimously or by majority of opinion among the CEC and the two other Election Commissioners. They also sought action against Garg, and on the next day, jointly set aside Garg’s work allocation order. 

“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,” the note said, so that they can seek the CEC’s opinion on the issue.