Election Commission row: RTI reveals Cabinet Secretariat refused action on ECs complaints against poll panel
The letters were disclosed in response to an RTI application filed by activist and retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra.
PTC News Desk: The Cabinet Secretariat did not act on complaints filed by two Election Commissioners against an officer of the Election Commission of India (ECI), stating that the letters were written in their individual capacity and did not represent the poll panel as a whole, according to documents released under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, raising concerns about the conduct of senior deputy election commissioner Maneesh Garg. Garg, an IAS officer, was appointed to the Election Commission by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet on September 2, 2024.
The letters were disclosed in response to an RTI application filed by activist and retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra.
The Indian Express reported in September that the two commissioners had approached the Cabinet Secretary after Garg issued an order changing the allocation of work among officials. They believed the move could centralise authority over changes to voter records instead of leaving such responsibilities with officials at the state level.
In a statement issued on September 26, the Election Commission said the work allocation orders issued by Garg had not been implemented following directions from the two commissioners.
The poll panel also clarified that the complaints concerned an officer on deputation and did not relate to policy matters or the Commission’s IT division.
What did the ECs allege ?
According to a Cabinet note included in the RTI response, both commissioners alleged that Garg changed the work allocation of officers senior or equivalent to him after taking charge as the link officer for the deputy election commissioner (Administration).
They claimed the changes were made without consulting the Election Commission or the officers concerned.
The commissioners also alleged that Garg made these changes despite repeated oral and written instructions not to alter work allocations without prior discussion or approval from the Commission.