RTI shows why cabinet secretary rejected ECs’ complaints against Maneesh Garg

• RTI response reveals cabinet secretary T.V. Somanathan declined to initiate action on complaints by election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi against Maneesh Garg.

• The commissioners alleged Garg revised senior officers’ work allocation without consultation or the Commission’s prior approval.

• The controversy comes amid SIR and scrutiny of deputy election commissioner Sanjay Kumar’s transfer from the ECI’s electoral roll division.

Amid growing protests over ‘vote chori (theft)’, a Right to Information (RTI) response has revealed that cabinet secretary T.V. Somanathan declined to initiate action on complaints submitted by two election commissioners against senior deputy election commissioner Maneesh Garg, citing concerns over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) institutional autonomy.

Somanathan said the complaints had been made in an ‘individual capacity’ and did not represent the Commission as a whole.

Election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi separately wrote to Somanathan on 29 July, seeking ‘appropriate action’ against Garg and alleging that he had altered the work allocation of senior officials.

According to a cabinet note included in the RTI response, both election commissioners alleged that Garg had issued an order revising the work allocation of senior and equivalent-ranking officers without consulting the Commission or the officers concerned.

The note stated that the changes had been made despite repeated oral and written instructions directing officers not to take such decisions without prior discussion with or approval from the Commission.

‘Both the ECs have stated that Shri Garg, after assuming the charge as link officer of DEC (Admn), has issued an order regarding work allocation of equivalent and senior officers to him without discussing the revised work allocation with the Commission or the officers concerned,’ the note said.

The commissioners further alleged that the changes had been made in disregard of instructions against taking such decisions without the Commission’s prior approval.

Following receipt of the complaints, a cabinet note prepared on 3 August proposed seeking the opinion of chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. ‘In this connection, we may request the chief election commissioner for his opinion on the issue. Accordingly, a draft DO is put up for approval, please,’ the note stated.

However, a subsequent note dated 4 August took the position that acting on complaints submitted by individual election commissioners, in the absence of an official communication from the Commission as a whole, could be construed as interference in the functioning of the constitutional body.

‘The above communications are from the Election Commissioners 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,’ it stated.

The position outlined in the note effectively ruled out executive action on the complaints in the absence of a formal communication representing the Commission as a whole.

Somanathan signed the draft note, which was also marked to the secretary of the department of personnel and training (DoPT) and the establishment officer for record-keeping.

The cabinet secretary subsequently acknowledged receipt of the complaints. The acknowledgements were issued on 5 August, with copies marked to the two election commissioners, DoPT, the establishment officer and the office of the CEC.

The controversy has also drawn attention to the transfer of Sanjay Kumar, a deputy election commissioner who was handling the ECI’s electoral roll division before being moved out of the Commission. The transfer took place amid the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, an exercise that has generated political controversy and allegations of irregularities.

The timing of Kumar’s transfer, alongside the complaints concerning Garg’s changes to officers’ work allocation, has raised questions about the Election Commission’s administrative functioning during the SIR exercise.