New Delhi: Around a month after an Indian Express investigation revealed that there is disquiet within the Election Commission of India over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and that two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had written to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan complaining about changes in work allocation that did away with crucial oversight despite their advice against it, a Right to Information (RTI) enquiry has revealed that instead of taking action on the issues raised in the letters, the Cabinet Secretariat had forwarded the letters to the office of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.The documents disclosed in the RTI response refer to an under secretary asking that the CEC’s opinion be sought. The cabinet secretary’s office only acknowledged the letters and shared them with the CEC, the RTI’s documents show.Cabinet Secretariat treated letters from two ECs to be in their ‘individual capacity’Moreover, even though the Cabinet Secretariat noted the fact that the CEC and ECs are equals and any decision is to be taken either unanimously or by the majority, it chose to treat the communications from the ECs to be in their individual capacity, despite the fact that both of them raising the same issue automatically gave them a majority over CEC Kumar.The RTI reply, obtained by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.), notes that the Cabinet Secretariat acknowledged the receipt of the two letters on August 5. However, whether the CEC has responded to the Cabinet Secretariat is not known.The RTI reply with Cabinet Secretariat TV. Somanathan’s observations that the communications sent by the two ECs were in their individual capacity.“The above communications are from the ECs 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,” file notings in the RTI reply reveal.However, in the same communication, the Secretariat noted, “as per Section 18 of The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the business of the Commission shall be transacted unanimously as far as possible and if the CEC or other ECs differ in opinion on any matter, such matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority. It also states that the Commission may regulate the procedure of transaction of its business by unanimous decision. Thus, it is evident that the CEC and ECs are equals and any decision is to be taken either unanimously or by the majority.”The RTI reply reveals that the Cabinet Secretariat had noted that that the CEC and ECs are equals and any decision is to be taken either unanimously or by the majority.The RTI reply includes copies of the two letters, sent separately by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29. Both letters refer to Senior Deputy Election Commissioner (Sr DEC) Maneesh Garg, who was given additional charge over the Administration Division while Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave from July 27 to August 9.Their letters note that “within a few hours of assuming charge” as the link officer DEC (Administration), Garg issued an order regarding work allocation among Sr DECs, DECs and equivalent officers without “discussing or informing” the two Election Commissioners or the Election Commission.The letter dated July 29, 2026, sent by Election Commissioner Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu to the Cabinet Secretary, T.V. Somnathan.The letters say that this work allocation happened despite “repeated and explicit oral and written instructions to all concerned officers” against taking such actions without informing the Election Commission.In his letter to Somanathan dated July 29, Sandhu writes that Garg was posted as Sr DEC since September 2, 2024, while Yeturu was DEC in charge of administration and his designated link officer was another DEC, Sanjay Kumar.Also read: Inside the ECI: Two Commissioners, 14 Objections, and No AnswersOn July 28, a day before the date on the letter, Garg was given Yeturu’s charge while the latter went on leave. Then, within a few hours, Garg had reallocated work without informing the Election Commission, which includes the two ECs and the CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The commission is required to function under majority decisions made amongst the three.“Within a few hours of assuming charge as link officer of DEC (Administration), Shri Maneesh Garg, IAS, issued an order regarding work allocation among Sr DECs, DECs, DGs and equivalent officers (copy enclosed) without discussing or informing the revised allocation of work with the Commission or the undersigned,” Sandhu’s letter said.“In the said order, he allocated work to himself as well as to officers who are senior and equivalent to him. Shri Maneesh Garg, IAS has issued similar orders earlier too, while he was working as DEC (Administration).”Sandhu further noted in his letter that Yeturu had not issued any such work allocation prior to going on leave.“Similarly, his original link officer, Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS also did not issue any such orders. Consequently, the charge of link officer for DEC (Administration) was suddenly assigned to Sr DEC (MG) on 28.07.2026, when he immediately issued the above mentioned order,” Sandhu’s letter said.Sandhu’s letter said that this happened despite “repeated and explicit oral and written instructions to all concerned officers by the undersigned against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the commission.”“This is not only contrary to the established past practice of the commission but also in clear violation of Section 18(1) and 18 (2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023,” the letter said.Both Election Commissioners raise similar concernsOn the same day, in a separate letter sent to Somanathan, Joshi too brought up the work allocation orders Garg had issued within a few hours of taking his new charge. While the language of Joshi’s letter is almost identical to Sandhu’s letter, Joshi additionally writes that the allocation was not only done without informing the commission, but when he asked to view the file, it was not provided to him.“Furthermore, when the undersigned requested for the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided. In the said order, he allocated work to himself as well as to officers who are senior and equivalent to him. Shri Maneesh Garg, IAS has issued similar orders on one earlier occasion while he was working as DEC (Administration),” Joshi’s letter said.The letter dated July 29, 2026, sent by Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary, T.V. Somnathan.The Indian Express had reported that Sandhu and Joshi’s letters to the Cabinet Secretary were a radical departure from the norm when they noted their concerns over the integrity of voter software, ECINet, which through the changed work allocation, in effect, removed a layer of oversight of the IT backbone for the electoral rolls.Also read: Election Commission’s New Press Note on SIR an ‘Admission of Guilt’Separately, the Hindustan Times reported that Sanjay Kumar, a DEC through whom the ECI’s director general of IT was routing files, was removed on the instruction of Garg. After this, Garg himself began monitoring the files.While the ECI said in a statement after the Indian Express report that the instruction to remove Kumar and route files to Garg was “not actually implemented”, the Hindustan Times report noted that Kumar was repatriated to his home cadre in August, and DG (IT) Seema Khanna’s files were routed to the ECs through Garg.The Indian Express investigation had also explained that it was Khanna and the IT department who put in place a system that prevented crucial officers (Electoral Roll Officers (ERO) and Deputy EROs) from accessing the voter database through which the names of electors were added and deleted.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.Note: This report was updated since publication to add more information, correct an error on an under secretary’s noting, and clarify details. The error is regretted.