When Two Election Commissioners Felt They Had to Write Outside
Not the usual internal notes that stay inside the building, but actual letters that went out to the Cabinet Secretary. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, both Election Commissioners, put their worries down on paper on 29 July and sent them straight to T.V. Somanathan. The RTI papers finally showed us what they wrote, and it is hard not to sit with it for a bit. Here is what happened, as far as the documents go. Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, the man looking after administration, went on leave. Maneesh Garg stepped in as the temporary link officer. Within hours he put out a new work-allocation order. It shifted who handled what among the senior people, including the ones dealing with the IT side of the electoral rolls. Sandhu wrote that nobody had discussed this with the Commission or with him. Joshi said the same, and added that when he asked for the file, it simply was not given. Both of them pointed to the 2023 law that is supposed to guide how the Commission works and asked for something to be done. What stays with me is the path they took. They did not just raise it inside. They wrote to the Cabinet Secretary. That choice says a lot about how things must have felt at the time. When two of the three people who make up the Commission decide they need to step outside to flag an administrative step, something is off. The Cabinet Secretariat looked at the letters and decided not to move further. The notings say the communications came from the two Commissioners in their personal capacity, not as a formal view of the whole body. Acting on them, they felt, could look like the executive poking into a constitutional institution. So they acknowledged the letters, marked copies to the Chief Election Commissioner and the Department of Personnel, and left it there. On paper it makes sense. In real life it left the concerns sitting on the record with no outside follow-up. Around the same period Sanjay Kumar, the Deputy Election Commissioner who had been handling the electoral roll and IT work, was sent back to his parent cadre in Delhi. The papers say it was on personal grounds. The timing, right after the order that changed how files from the IT division moved, still sits awkwardly. The Election Commission has said the disputed order was never actually put into practice once the two Commissioners objected. That may well be true. The sequence still leaves a few questions hanging. For anyone who watches how these institutions run, the whole episode brings up ordinary thoughts. How does a body like the Election Commission deal with differences when the people at the top are not on the same page about process? What happens when someone on temporary charge issues orders that senior members say were never talked through? And where does a regular person look for clarity when the public papers show two Election Commissioners felt they had to write outside? Transparency did a bit of the work. Commodore Lokesh Batra’s RTI application brought the letters and the file notings into the open. Without that we would still be going by newspaper stories and careful official statements. The reply does not give every single page, but it is enough to see the trail: the date of the letters, the officer named, the measured response from the Secretariat, and the decision to leave the matter inside the Commission. I am not pretending to know the full internal picture. Places like this have their own pressures and ways of working. What I do know is that when people at that level start writing outside normal channels about basic administrative steps, the rest of us have a right to notice. The independence of the Election Commission is not just a line in a law book. It is something people feel when they check their name on the voter list or stand in a queue on polling day. Any sense that internal processes are being stretched without proper talk chips away at that quiet trust. The Commission has given its side. The orders were not implemented. The letters were about an officer on deputation, not about policy. All right. Still, the fact that two Commissioners felt they needed to write those letters is now part of the record. So is the Cabinet Secretariat’s choice to stay out of it, citing the Commission’s constitutional status. In the end this is less about one officer or one set of orders and more about how a key institution handles disagreement. The RTI papers do not fix anything. They just let us see what was written and how it was received. For a country that needs the Election Commission to stay above the usual noise, that kind of visibility is useful. It reminds us that even these bodies are made of people who sometimes feel they have to put their concerns in writing and send them outside the building. Sources: RTI reply obtained by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.); coverage in The Wire, The Indian Express, Business Standard, The Times of India and Hindustan Times on the July 2026 letters and what followed. Publisher By – Rohit Manral Written By – Anjali Pandey
RTI Papers Show Two Election Commissioners Flagged Work Changes Inside Poll Body, Cabinet Secretariat Stepped Back
New Delhi: Papers released under the Right to Information Act have brought into the open what two Election Commissioners wrote to the country’s top bureaucrat in July. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi each sent separate letters on 29 July to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan. They raised questions about how Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg handled work allocation inside the Election Commission while filling in for another officer who was on leave. The letters, obtained by retired Navy officer and transparency activist Commodore Lokesh K. Batra, describe a sequence that left the two commissioners uneasy. Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who looked after the Administration Division, was away from 27 July to 9 August. On 28 July Garg was given the additional charge as link officer. Within a few hours he issued a fresh order that reassigned responsibilities among Senior Deputy Election Commissioners, Deputy Election Commissioners, Directors General and officers of similar rank. Sandhu wrote that the revised allocation was put out without any discussion with the Commission or with him. He noted that Garg had allocated work to himself and to officers senior or equal in rank. The same letter pointed out that similar steps had been taken earlier despite clear oral and written instructions that such changes needed prior discussion or approval from the Commission. Joshi’s letter, almost identical in language, added one more detail: when he asked to see the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not given to him. Both commissioners referred to Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. They asked for appropriate action. The work order also touched the routing of files from the IT Division headed by Director General Seema Khanna. Earlier those files used to move through Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar. The new arrangement removed that step. Later reports noted that Kumar was repatriated to his parent cadre in Delhi in August, before his normal tenure ended. The Election Commission has said the redistribution order itself was never put into effect after the two commissioners raised objections, and that the letters concerned an officer on deputation rather than any policy or IT matter. Inside the Cabinet Secretariat the letters were examined. File notings from early August record that the communications came from the two Election Commissioners in their individual capacity. Officials noted that acting on them without a formal communication from the Election Commission as a whole could be seen as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body. The Secretariat is designed to keep the poll panel insulated from the executive. On 5 August the Cabinet Secretary acknowledged the letters and marked copies to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and to the Department of Personnel and Training. No further action followed from the Secretariat. The episode sits against a wider backdrop of questions about internal coordination inside the Election Commission during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Earlier newspaper reports had spoken of repeated notes from Sandhu and Joshi objecting to decisions taken without their knowledge. The RTI disclosure now places the July correspondence on public record and shows how the Cabinet Secretariat chose to treat the matter as an internal concern of the Commission rather than a subject for external intervention. Garg, an IAS officer of the Himachal Pradesh cadre, has been with the Commission since September 2024 after appointment by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The two commissioners’ letters did not claim any policy shift on electoral rolls; they focused on the manner in which administrative orders were issued and the absence of consultation. For its part the Election Commission has maintained that once the two commissioners objected, the disputed work-allocation orders were not implemented. The repatriation of Sanjay Kumar was described in official papers as being on personal grounds, though the timing coincided with the period of friction over file routing. The RTI reply has not released every page of the original letters or the full internal discussion. What it does confirm is the existence of the complaints, the precise date they were sent, the officer they named, and the Secretariat’s decision to stop at acknowledgement and information to the Chief Election Commissioner. In a system that places high value on the independence of the Election Commission, the choice not to step in is consistent with the principle that the poll body must manage its own internal arrangements. Whether the concerns raised by Sandhu and Joshi have been fully resolved inside Nirvachan Sadan remains a matter for the Commission itself. The public now has the documentary trail that shows two of its three members felt the need to write outside the building when they believed established procedures had been bypassed. The Cabinet Secretariat’s response underlines the boundary it is prepared to respect between executive offices and a constitutional institution. Sources: The Wire (22 October 2026), The Indian Express (23 October 2026), Business Standard (23 October 2026), The Times of India (23-24 October 2026), Hindustan Times reports referenced in subsequent coverage, and RTI reply obtained by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.). Publisher By – Rohit Manral Written By – Anjali Pandey
Bureaucratic restraint: No more internal stories to come out of Election Commission?
Officials in the Home Ministry and the Election Commission are keeping their mouths shut on almost everything that matters administratively. Sources who once spoke freely now say the same thing: no more internal stories. Not about the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, not about how decisions were taken, and not about any further inquiries that may still be sitting in files. It is not an official order pinned on the notice board. It is more of a mood, a collective decision to stay careful. After months of reports about disagreements inside Nirvachan Sadan, the atmosphere has changed. Earlier this year, detailed accounts emerged of two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, putting their concerns on record more than a dozen times over ten months. They raised questions about changes to Form 6 for new voter registration, about how the central software systems for electoral rolls were being managed, and about orders that appeared to go out in the Commission’s name without full discussion. Those reports, based on internal notes, set off a sharp political debate. The Commission itself maintained that differing views are normal in any multi-member body and that the final decisions, including the big ones on the SIR exercise, were taken unanimously. Now the shutters seem to have come down. Officials in both the Home Ministry and the Election Commission are said to be under instructions, or at least under strong advice, not to discuss administrative matters with outsiders. The result, according to people familiar with the corridors, is that any further internal examination of the SIR process or other sensitive functions is unlikely to surface in the public domain anytime soon. Whatever papers exist will stay inside. Whatever reviews are underway will remain confidential. Observers who watch these institutions closely say this is part of a wider tendency these days—keep operational information tightly controlled, especially when it touches elections and voter lists. The SIR itself has been one of the most talked-about exercises in recent memory. Starting in Bihar and then spreading across states and Union territories, it involved a thorough re-check of electoral rolls. Draft lists showed large numbers of names removed—figures quoted in public discussion have gone into crores. There were cases of people whose names vanished even though they were alive and living at the same address. There were appeals, hearings, and court interventions. Political parties raised alarms. The Commission defended the process as necessary to clean the rolls of deceased voters, duplicates, and those who had shifted permanently. It pointed to opportunities for claims and objections, and to the fact that the Supreme Court had examined aspects of the exercise. Yet the internal notes that became public created a different kind of discomfort. When two of the three members of a constitutional body record repeated objections about procedure, software access, and the way certain orders were issued, it naturally raises questions about how collective decision-making is working. The Commission’s response was that such notes are part of healthy deliberation and that the larger body of decisions remained unanimous. After a meeting of all three commissioners later in September, the Commission reiterated that position and announced some practical steps—extended deadlines in certain places, easier ways for affected voters to submit documents, and a review of the digital systems with outside technical input. That public exchange now appears to have been followed by a quieter phase. Sources say the bureaucracy has simply decided enough is enough. No more background briefings, no more selective leaks, no more detailed accounts of who wrote what to whom. In the Home Ministry as well, the same reserved approach is visible on related administrative matters. The message is clear: sensitive operational information stays inside the system. This kind of restraint is not entirely new in government. There have always been periods when officials become more guarded, especially after a burst of publicity. What stands out this time is how complete the silence seems. People who earlier confirmed or denied small details now decline even those. Journalists covering the beat find doors less open. The expectation among those who follow these institutions is that the internal workings of the SIR process, and any investigations that may still be going on, will remain strictly confidential. No additional disclosures are anticipated from either side in the near future. For an institution like the Election Commission, which depends heavily on public trust, the balance is always delicate. Transparency helps credibility. At the same time, constant leakage of internal notes can make day-to-day functioning harder. Officials argue that once the final decisions are taken and put out, the internal debate should not keep playing out in the open. Critics worry that too much opacity creates space for suspicion. Both sides have a point, and both have been making it for weeks. What has changed in the last few days is the practical outcome. The flow of internal stories has slowed to a trickle and, according to those in a position to know, is expected to stop. Whether that brings calm to the institution or simply moves the conversation into private channels is something only time will tell. For now, the bureaucratic restraint is firm. The files stay closed, the conversations stay inside, and the public is left with whatever has already been said. Sources: Whispers in the Corridors (12 October 2026); The Indian Express investigation reports (September 2026); Election Commission of India press notes (23 and 26 September 2026); The Hindu and other contemporary reporting on the SIR exercise and internal Commission deliberations. Publisher By – Rohit Manral Written By – Anjali Pandey
Centre Appoints 2010-Batch IAS Officer Prakash Rajpurohit as Deputy Election Commissioner
New Delhi: The central government has appointed Prakash Rajpurohit as the new Deputy Election Commissioner in the Election Commission of India. The 2010-batch IAS officer from the Rajasthan cadre was given the post till April 8, 2030. He succeeds Sanjay Kumar who was prematurely repatriated to his parent cadre in August this year. The post was cleared by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet in a wider bureaucratic reshuffle involving 27 officers being shifted to joint secretary-level and equivalent positions in various departments and institutions. Rajpurohit is a non-attention-grabbing name, and that could well be his plus point. He is the type of administrator who gets things done without much hoopla. The son of a government school teacher, he did a B.E. (Electrical) from IIT Delhi before joining the IAS in 2010. He has been a good officer with rich field and secretariat experience. He served in Rajasthan as Collector of Ajmer, which gave him a close exposure to the district administration, law and order and developmental administration. He was the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes before joining the Central Secretariat as Director in the Department of Economic Affairs where one of his assignments was to negotiate international investment treaties. In recent times he was the Joint Secretary in the Department of Defence Production in the Ministry of Defence. Those who have worked with him describe him as a competent and clean officer who gets on with his work without making too much noise or seeking attention. The post of the Deputy Election Commissioner is a crucial one in the Election Commission as the three Election Commissioners constitute the decision-making body while the Deputy Election Commissioners assist them in day-to-day operations and administration. The vacancy had been lying vacant since Sanjay Kumar was transferred back to the Rajasthan cadre. Kumar, in his capacity as the Deputy Election Commissioner, was looking after the Electoral Rolls and IT Divisions which are the lifelines of the modern election management in India. These two divisions deal with the voter list management system and the IT infrastructure that supports the election process. Rajpurohit’s appointment as the Deputy Election Commissioner coincides with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which has invited some protests in certain states in the country. The special revision exercise seeks to regularise the electoral rolls by the Election Commission. The new Deputy Election Commissioner would be handling one of the more critical portfolios in the Election Commission. With a tenure that stretches till April 8, 2030, it will give him opportunity to settle down and take charge of the various election process in the coming years. How the portfolio of the electoral rolls and IT systems would be placed under him will be interesting to watch out for. In the meanwhile, the new entrant to the Election Commission can be described as a competent officer with field and secretariat experience. In a way this is a routine bureaucratic exercise wherein the Election Commission continues to look after the conduct of the free and fair elections in the country with the support of various officers. Prakash Rajpurohit has become the latest addition to the list of important functionaries in the Election Commission. Sources: The Indian Express (11 Oct 2026), Business Standard/PTI (10 Oct 2026), Hindustan Times (10 Oct 2026), LiveMint (10 Oct 2026), Indian Masterminds, Current Affairs Adda247. Prakash Rajpurohit has been appointed as the new Deputy Election Commissioner of India. Key Details @Rohit Manral