Meet Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, Vivek Joshi – No action from government despite EC flagging ECI official’s conduct, RTI shows | Today’s news

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29, expressing concern over the conduct of Chief Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and his alleged changes in the division of labor of senior officials in the election body.

However, the Cabinet Secretariat decided against taking action, saying the complaints were made “individually” by the commissioners and without “an official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be unreasonable”, documents released under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show.

Letters provided in an RTI reply to activist Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (retd) alleged that Garg revised the duties of senior officers without consulting the Commission or obtaining its approval, according to PTI. The Cabinet Secretariat acknowledged receipt of both communications on August 5 and marked them to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the Office of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

Who are Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi?

Sandhu and Joshi are the two election commissioners who have raised complaints against Garg. On 29 July, they sent separate communications to Somanathan seeking appropriate action regarding the officer’s conduct and changes in the internal division of labor in the Election Commission.

Read also | When the BJP protested against the Election Commission in 2014

Sandhu, 63, is a former chief secretary of Uttarakhand. He completed his MBBS from Government Medical College, Amritsar, and later obtained his Master of Arts in History from Guru Nanak Dev University in the same city. He also holds a law degree.

Joshi, 60, is a former chief secretary of Haryana. He previously served as the Personnel Secretary of India from 19 August to 31 October 2024 after heading the Ministry of Financial Services as its Secretary.

Born in Uttar Pradesh on May 21, 1966, he holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from IIT Roorkee and a Post Graduate Diploma in International Business from the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi. He later earned a master’s degree and a doctorate in international economics from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

Both were appointed as Election Commissioners in March 2024.

What did the election commissioners claim in their letters?

The two commissioners alleged that Garg, after assuming the post of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner (Administration), had issued an order changing the division of work between Chief Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, CEOs and officers of equivalent rank.

According to the cabinet note, which is part of the RTI reply, the commissioners said that Garg made the changes without discussing them with the Commission or the officials concerned. They also alleged that he acted despite repeated oral and written instructions against making such changes without prior discussion or approval.

Read also | Here’s a look at CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s journey as calls for his resignation grow

“Both the ECs stated that Shri Garg, after taking charge as DEC Liaison Officer (Admn), issued an order regarding work allocation to equivalent and senior officers without discussing the revised work allocation with the Commission or the officers concerned. Further, the above ECs stated that this was done despite repeated oral and written instructions to all the officers concerned stating that they do not take such action without prior discussion/approval,” the cabinet said.

The commissioners described Garg’s actions as a violation of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure) Act, 2023. Joshi also claimed that when he sought the relevant file from the administrative department, it was not provided to him.

Why did the Cabinet Secretariat not act on the complaints?

A Cabinet note prepared on 3 August 2026 initially suggested asking the CEC for an opinion on the matter.

Read also | Imran Khan moves Bombay High Court against ‘Quit India’ notice.

“In this context, we can ask the Chief Electoral Commissioner for his opinion on this matter. In accordance with this, please submit the DO proposal for approval.”

However, a follow-up note dated August 4 said that dealing with the complaints of the two election commissioners without an official communication from the Commission as a whole could constitute an interference with the functioning of the constitutional body.

“The commission is a constitutional body and has been insulated from executive interference by design to ensure that it functions independently and in a transparent manner. The work and functioning of the commission is governed by the rules and instructions of the Election Commission. The above communications are from the Election Commissioners in their individual capacity and while they are to be taken with due seriousness, they cannot be considered as formal communications of the commission as a whole,” the note said.

He further noted that though Garg was appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), he was now an Election Commission officer and his work and conduct were governed by the rules and guidelines of the election body.

The communication also referred to section 18 of the 2023 Act, which provides that the business of the Commission should, as far as possible, be carried out unanimously, with differences of opinion resolved by a majority.

“The Electoral Commissioners have sent these communications to the appropriate meeting; however, 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 seen as an interference in the functioning of a constitutional body. It would therefore be appropriate to send a confirmation to both Electoral Commissioners with a copy of the PPS to the CEC for the information of the CEC,” the note reads.

The draft was signed by Somanathan and marked to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training and the Establishment Officer. It also said complaints would be recorded so “they can be taken into account in future decisions about the officer”.

What was the reaction of the electoral commission?

The Indian Express reported in September that two commissioners had approached the cabinet secretary after a work assignment order issued within the electoral body raised concerns about centralizing powers related to adding or deleting names and updating voter records, instead of leaving those duties to state-level officials.

In a statement issued on September 26, the Election Commission said the revised work allocation orders were not implemented as per the directions of the two commissioners. It also claimed that the complaints sent to the Cabinet Secretary were about the officer on deputation and not about policy matters or the IT department.