Cabinet Secretariat Declines Action on Election Commissioners' Complaints
Two Election Commissioners' grievances against a senior officer remain unaddressed, as the Cabinet Secretariat cites lack of formal representation.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi filed complaints against Maneesh Garg on July 29.
The Cabinet Secretariat determined the complaints were made in individual capacities, not on behalf of the Election Commission.
Concerns were raised about Garg's authority over voter record changes without proper consultation.
In a significant development, the Cabinet Secretariat has opted not to act on complaints lodged by two Election Commissioners against senior deputy election commissioner Maneesh Garg. This decision, revealed through documents obtained via an RTI application, indicates that the complaints were deemed to have been submitted in the Commissioners' individual capacities and did not reflect the stance of the Election Commission as a whole.
The complaints were brought to the attention of Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29 by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Their concerns centered around Garg's issuance of a work allocation order that could centralize power over voter record changes, which they believed should be managed at the state level. Following these complaints, the Election Commission stated that Garg's orders were not implemented due to directives from the two Commissioners.
According to a Cabinet note released in response to the RTI, both Commissioners accused Garg of altering the work allocation of senior officers without consulting either the Commission or the affected officers. They claimed that Garg's actions violated the chief election commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Joshi also reported difficulties in obtaining relevant files from the Administration Division, further complicating the matter.
The Cabinet Secretariat's rationale for not pursuing the complaints stemmed from a note dated August 4, which suggested that acting on individual complaints could be perceived as interference in the Election Commission's constitutional functions. The note emphasized that the Commission operates independently and is insulated from executive interference, thus requiring unanimous decision-making for its operations. It also highlighted that while Garg was appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, he was now subject to the Election Commission's rules and guidelines.
Looking ahead, the Cabinet Secretary has acknowledged the complaints and indicated that they will be recorded for future reference regarding Garg's conduct. This situation raises questions about the accountability mechanisms within the Election Commission and the implications for its operational integrity as it navigates internal disputes and external scrutiny.
