Two Election Commissioners raised objections to a July 2026 work allocation order, prompting a dispute over administrative procedures within India’s Election Commission, which denied claims of policy dissent and emphasized unanimous decision-making.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi sent letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan in July 2026, challenging the functioning of a senior Deputy Election Commissioner (DEC) on deputation, according to multiple reports. The controversy centered on a work order issued on July 28, which redistributed administrative and IT responsibilities, bypassing standard Commission protocols.
Controversy Over Work Allocation Order
The July 28 work order, issued by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, removed oversight layers by directly assigning IT and grievance responsibilities to Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, bypassing DEC Sanjay Kumar. This shift, which occurred during Kumar’s leave, drew objections from Sandhu and Joshi, who argued it violated established procedures. The Commission later clarified that the letters were not about policy but operational conduct, stating the changes were never fully implemented.
Sources indicated that Kumar’s responsibilities were later reassigned to Garg after his repatriation in August 2026, restoring an earlier structure verbally. The Election Commission emphasized that all decisions remain “unanimous,” with disagreements resolved through majority voting in its three-member body, as outlined in the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The Commission’s statement highlighted that the work redistribution orders issued by the officer involved were not implemented following the two commissioners’ directives, and the deputy election commissioner’s oversight of the IT division remained in place.
The July 28 work order also left Sanjay Kumar with responsibility for electoral roll-related matters. It should be noted that approximately a month later, DEC Sanjay Kumar was prematurely transferred back to his parent cadre on personal grounds per DoPT order. The work order was issued by the then Senior Deputy Election Commissioner overseeing administrative matters, Manish Garg. Administrative matters in the Election Commission are assigned to DEC Bhanu Pratap Yeturu, who was on leave at the time, according to the sources. Garg issued the order in his capacity as the officer handling administrative matters as in-charge.
The exact contents of the letters have not been made public. Under the revised structure, the Election Commission had no Deputy Election Commissioner between it and the DG (IT) in the reporting hierarchy for these areas. Sanjay Kumar, meanwhile, continued to be responsible for electoral roll-related matters. An exclusive copy of a work allocation order issued by the Election Commission of India on July 28 sparked contention. Two Election Commissioners, S. S. Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, raised objections to the July 28 work order. The issue was subsequently discussed within the Commission.
ECI’s Response to Internal Dispute Allegations
The Election Commission rejected claims of systemic policy dissent, stating that differences among commissioners are part of its deliberative process. A press release noted that the letters to the Cabinet Secretary pertained to an officer’s “working” rather than the CEC’s actions, with the Commission reaffirming that field officers retain role-based access to ECINet.
The Commission denied these allegations, stating that all final decisions are made unanimously. The ECI’s statement stressed that the letters pertained to an officer’s deputation rather than policy matters of the Commission or its IT division.
Chaturvedi criticized the Election Commission of India (ECI) for what she termed the “arbitrary” and “shameful” removal of over 13 crore voters’ names from the electoral rolls during the ongoing SIR exercise. She addressed the process by which electoral authorities conducted voter deletions and verification, raising concerns about citizens being made to queue to prove their citizenship. Gandhi accused the ECI of attempting “vote theft” through its actions. During his visit to Bela Estate, New Delhi, he stated that 727 names had been struck off the voter list, with residents claiming they had lived there for decades and had previously voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the 2025 Delhi elections.
Implications for Electoral Integrity
The dispute has intensified scrutiny of the ECI’s administrative transparency, with opposition parties demanding greater accountability. The Commission’s clarification that the letters were not policy-related but operational underscores its emphasis on procedural adherence. However, concerns persist over the SIR process, with critics alleging it undermines voter rights. The ECI has yet to address these claims directly, focusing instead on reaffirming its institutional protocols.
The incident highlights the challenges of balancing administrative efficiency with transparency in a multi-member commission. As the ECI continues its work, the resolution of these internal disputes and the outcome of the IT review will be critical in shaping public confidence in India’s electoral process. The Commission’s history of internal disputes, such as those in 1993 and 2009, underscores the recurring tensions within its structure. In 1993, the President appointed M.S. Gill and G.V.G. Bagga to restore the three-member body, while in 2009, Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami sent a suo motu recommendation to the President to remove Election Commissioner Navin Chawla from office.
Security personnel stood guard outside the Election Commission of India (ECI) office, at Nirvachan Sadan in New Delhi, as the controversy unfolded. The ECI’s statement emphasized that the letters were not related to policy matters but to the working of an officer on deputation. It also noted that the work redistribution orders issued by the officer involved were not implemented following the two commissioners’ directives, and the deputy election commissioner’s oversight of the IT division remained in place. The Commission reiterated its commitment to transparency, stating that all decisions are made unanimously, with disagreements resolved through majority voting.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) has accused the BJP-led government of undermining democratic institutions, claiming constitutional bodies are being exploited for political ends. The criticism appeared in an editorial in the party mouthpiece Saamana amid a political controversy over the SIR of electoral rolls. The editorial criticized Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and alleged that the Election Commission’s neutrality had been compromised. It alleged that 13 crore voters in Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Bihar were systematically disenfranchised to sway electoral results.
Former MP Priyanka Chaturvedi claimed that her name, along with the names of her husband and son, had been removed from the electoral rolls in Mumbai. She stated that they had been informed they needed to submit additional documents and appear in person to have their names included. Chaturvedi emphasized that their names were included in initial electoral rolls, highlighting the confusion and inconvenience caused by the SIR process. The ECI has not publicly addressed these specific claims, focusing instead on broader statements about its procedures.
The Election Commission’s response to internal disputes has historically included clarifications and procedural adjustments. In 2009, after a period of relative calm, trouble erupted again when Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami sent a suo motu recommendation to the President to remove Election Commissioner Navin Chawla from office. This came after BJP leader L.K. Advani’s petition to the President on March 16, 2006, seeking the removal of Mr. Chawla.
The Commission returned to a three-member body on October 1, 1993, with the appointment of M.S. Gill and G.V.G. Bagga. The current structure, with CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, has faced its own challenges, including the recent dispute over the July 28 work order.
The ECI’s statement on the letters to the Cabinet Secretary emphasized that routine administrative matters regarding personnel are generally escalated to the CEC. However, if the concerns had targeted CEC Gyanesh Kumar directly, official protocol would have required the communication to be addressed to the President of India. The Commission’s clarification also noted that the letters were not related to policy matters but to the working of an officer on deputation. This distinction is critical in understanding the nature of the dispute and the Commission’s response.
As the ECI continues to navigate internal and external challenges, the focus remains on maintaining the integrity of India’s electoral process. The recent controversy over the work allocation order and the SIR exercise underscores the need for transparency and accountability. The Commission’s emphasis on unanimous decision-making and procedural adherence reflects its commitment to upholding democratic principles, even as it faces persistent scrutiny from opposition parties and civil society. The outcome of ongoing reviews and the resolution of internal disputes will be pivotal in shaping the Commission’s future operations and public trust.