Official documents obtained by RTI activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd) reveal how the Cabinet Secretariat handled complaints from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi against Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The two Commissioners wrote separately to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, 2026, seeking action over a work allocation order issued without consulting them or the Commission.
The disclosures follow the September 23 investigation by The Indian Express, which documented repeated internal objections over the centralisation of electoral roll management, restrictions on statutory officials’ access to voter databases and changes in oversight of the Election Commission’s IT division.
The newly disclosed records show that the Cabinet Secretariat considered seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s opinion. It ultimately acknowledged the complaints but concluded that acting without a formal communication from the Commission as a whole could be construed as interference in a constitutional body.
ECINet’s launch followed earlier warnings about software controls
ECINet was launched on January 22, 2026, bringing more than 40 election applications and portals onto a single platform for voters and election officials. CEC Gyanesh Kumar said the platform had been developed in accordance with the law, while Director General of Information Technology Seema Khanna said it would “enhance transparency, credibility and public trust”.
The platform was presented as a means of simplifying election services and addressing misinformation. Kumar also offered assistance to other countries interested in developing similar systems suited to their laws and languages.
Within the Commission, however, concerns about software restricting the powers of election officials had surfaced before ECINet’s launch. These initially involved ERONet, the electoral roll management system subsequently brought within ECINet.
On November 4, 2025, Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar, acting on Sandhu’s directions, wrote to Khanna and other senior officers. He said the statutory functions of Electoral Registration Officers, District Election Officers and Chief Electoral Officers had to be exercised by those authorities alone and that the IT systems must comply with the law.
On January 2, 2026, with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) underway in 12 States and Union Territories, Kumar again wrote to Khanna. As a module for issuing notices and conducting hearings was being introduced, he asked that the system preserve the ERO’s discretion to act.
Commissioners questioned centralisation and sought an audit
The concerns related to the relationship between statutory responsibility and control over the software used to discharge it. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, assign responsibility for preparing electoral rolls and deciding claims, objections, inclusions and deletions to designated statutory authorities.
The Commissioners’ objection was that centrally controlled software access was restricting those authorities’ ability to perform their duties.
On April 16, Sandhu recorded that the IT division had developed several modules and portals without bringing them to his knowledge or presenting them before the Commission. He said he had learnt about developments through the media and asked that all members be briefed and the necessary approvals obtained before further activities were undertaken.
On May 29, Joshi wrote to the CEC, Sandhu and Sanjay Kumar about the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database”. He proposed an audit involving an outside expert from the Indian Institutes of Technology to establish that only the relevant statutory authorities possessed credentials to change the voter database.
Joshi proposed two committees. One would periodically examine the systems and certify that database access remained with the statutory authorities. The other would assess legal compliance and ensure that policy or procedural changes to ERONet and ECINet were brought before the Commission.
According to the Indian Express, Sandhu endorsed the proposal on July 13 and asked that it be placed before the Commission. On August 14, he recorded “Any action taken on these two notes of two Election Commissioners is not known to the undersigned.”
July 28 order removed a layer of IT oversight
The work allocation dispute arose while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who handled administration, was on leave from July 27 to August 9. Garg received additional charge of the administration division and issued a revised work allocation order on July 28.
The order removed Sanjay Kumar’s oversight of the DG(IT). Until then, Kumar had supervised the division’s work and routed its files to the three-member Commission.
The change affected the administrative channel through which the Commissioners had sought information about the IT division and proposed scrutiny of its systems.
In separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29, Sandhu and Joshi complained that Garg had revised the allocation of work among senior officers without discussing it with the Commission or the officers concerned. They said this had happened despite repeated oral and written instructions against making such changes without prior discussion or approval.
Sandhu said the revised allocation had not been discussed with or communicated to him. Joshi added that when he sought the relevant file from the administration division, it was not provided.
Both Commissioners alleged that the action departed from established practice and violated the law governing the Commission.
Two Commissioners set aside the order
On July 30, a day after writing to the Cabinet Secretary, Sandhu and Joshi jointly set aside Garg’s order.
They described the changes as having been made “without any reason and justification” and directed that the previous allocation continues until the Commission reached a consensus on any revision. Their note was sent to Garg and copied to the CEC.
The sequence is significant: The Commissioners first sought action from the Cabinet Secretary and then jointly directed that the disputed administrative changes should not operate.
Cabinet Secretariat considered seeking the CEC’s opinion
The RTI records show that the complaints were examined within the Cabinet Secretariat on August 3 and August 4.
The August 3 noting summarised the allegation that Garg had revised the work allocation of officers equivalent or senior to him without consulting the Commission or those concerned. It also recorded the Commissioners’ complaint that this had occurred despite earlier instructions requiring prior discussion or approval.
“In this connection, we may request the Chief Election Commissioner for his opinion on the issue,” the noting stated, as the Times of India reported.
The disclosed material does not establish whether the proposed communication seeking the CEC’s opinion was sent or whether he responded. The following day’s noting records the course ultimately adopted: acknowledge the letters, inform the CEC’s office and place the matter on record with the personnel authorities.
Why the Secretariat declined action
The Cabinet Secretariat noted that the Election Commission was a constitutional body designed to function independently of executive interference. It also referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, under which business should be transacted unanimously wherever possible, with differences resolved by majority.
However, it treated the two letters as communications from the Commissioners individually rather than a formal reference from the Commission.
“The above communications are from the ECs 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,” the August 4 noting stated, The Hindu reported.
The Secretariat reasoned that although Garg had been appointed through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, his conduct as an ECI officer was governed by the Commission’s rules and guidelines.
It therefore concluded that, without an official communication from the Commission as a whole, action at that stage could be inappropriate and construed as interference in the constitutional body’s functioning.
Complaints acknowledged and placed on record
Somanathan acknowledged both Commissioners’ letters on August 5. Copies were marked to the CEC’s office, the Department of Personnel and Training Secretary and the Establishment Officer.
The acknowledgement referred specifically to their July 29 letters concerning the working of Garg, a 1996-batch Himachal Pradesh cadre IAS officer serving as Senior Deputy Election Commissioner.
The Cabinet Secretariat also decided that the personnel authorities should retain the matter on record so it could be considered in future decisions concerning the officer.
The decision thus left the complaints formally recorded but did not initiate the action the Commissioners had sought.
Sandhu raised further concerns about restricted access
On August 14, Sandhu recorded a more detailed objection to the operation of the electoral roll system. He said several Chief Electoral Officers, District Election Officers and Electoral Registration Officers had reported that they lacked “proper and complete access” to ERONet and were consequently unable to discharge their statutory duties properly.
He objected to responsibility remaining with these authorities while access was controlled centrally at the DG(IT) level.
Sandhu said the DG(IT) had no legal authority to restrict the access and operational freedom available to statutory authorities under the law. He directed that full access be provided immediately.
He also sought certification from the DG(IT), based on confirmations from Chief Electoral Officers, that statutory authorities across States and Union Territories could perform their functions without restrictions.
Sanjay Kumar, handling the ‘Electoral Roll’ division in ECI moved out of ECI
On Aug 24, Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Election Commissioner was moved out of ECI while the two Election Commissioners complained against Maneesh Garg.
Kumar had been handling the electoral roll division and had earlier communicated directions seeking to protect statutory officials’ powers from restrictions imposed through the IT system. His oversight of the DG(IT) had also been affected by the July 28 order that the two Commissioners subsequently set aside.
His departure forms part of the chronology. The material supplied does not, however, establish that it resulted from the Commissioners’ complaints or his earlier communications.
As a follow up to @IndianExpress story on ‘CEC vs ECs’, official documents accessed by RTI Activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd) sheds more light on the issue.
Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi wrote to Union Cabinet Secretary individually on the issue of change in ‘work allocation order’ by Maneesh Garg, Sr Deputy Election Commissioner on July 29.
Cabinet Secretariat decided to seek the opinion of the CEC Gyanesh Kumar on Aug 3. (No information on whether CEC responded to the Cabinet Secretariat).
Union Cabinet Secretary, TV Somanathan acknowledged the letters of the two ECs Dr SS Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi on Aug 5.
On Aug 24, Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Election Commissioner was moved out of ECI while the two Election Commissioners complained against Maneesh Garg.
Importantly, Sanjay Kumar was handling the ‘Electoral Roll’ division in ECI before he was moved out of ECI.
The officer handling the ‘Electoral Roll’ division was moved out of ECI in the middle of SIR’ exercise.
— Arvind Gunasekar (@arvindgunasekar) October 22, 2026
ECI said the disputed order never took effect
The ECI responded on September 26 that the work redistribution orders issued by the officer concerned were never implemented following the two Commissioners’ directions.
It also maintained that their letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation, rather than policy decisions or matters relating to the IT division.
The RTI disclosures establish how the Cabinet Secretariat handled those letters: it acknowledged the complaints, informed the CEC’s office and personnel authorities, and declined executive action. The wider record contains repeated objections about database centralisation, access restrictions and oversight.
Related:
Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions
Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security
Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC
Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission