New Delhi: A Right to Information (RTI) response has confirmed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote separate letters to Union Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan in July 2026, instead of addressing their communications to Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The disclosure has brought renewed attention to reported differences within the Election Commission of India (ECI).
According to an India Today report published on October 21, the Cabinet Secretariat received the letters dated July 29 and formally registered them on July 30. The RTI response, dated October 19, also revealed that the communications were subsequently forwarded to officials in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the CEC’s office by August 5.
RTI Reveals Official Paper Trail
The RTI application, filed on September 24, sought information about the correspondence and the action taken after the letters reached the Cabinet Secretariat.
While the response confirmed the existence and movement of the documents, it did not disclose their full contents. The Cabinet Secretariat reportedly withheld 14 pages of material, including the commissioners’ 10-page letters, two pages of replies and two pages of file notings, pending payment of a ₹28 fee.
The disclosure provides an official record of the correspondence, although the complete details of the communications remain unavailable in the reported RTI response.
Dispute Over Work Allocation
The letters were reportedly linked to a work-allocation order issued on July 28 involving an officer serving on deputation to the Election Commission.
Media reports indicated that the two commissioners objected to the order, raising concerns about the procedure followed and the allocation of responsibilities. The revised work allocation was subsequently set aside.
The controversy has also drawn attention to administrative oversight of the Election Commission’s information technology infrastructure and systems used for electoral rolls. However, the precise contents of the letters cannot be independently established from the RTI response alone.
Election Commission Issues Clarification
The Election Commission addressed the controversy in a press statement issued on September 26, stating that the correspondence was not related to any policy matter of the Commission or its IT division.
According to the Commission, the letters concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation to the ECI. It also stated that the disputed work-redistribution orders were not implemented after the two commissioners intervened and that oversight of the IT division by the Deputy Election Commissioner had never actually been withdrawn.
The clarification offered the Commission’s account of the matter, while leaving questions about the precise concerns raised in the letters dependent on the underlying documents.
Why the Disclosure Matters
The RTI response has renewed scrutiny of the internal functioning of the country’s constitutional election authority. The decision by two commissioners to write to the Cabinet Secretary, rather than directly to the Chief Election Commissioner, has become a significant point of public interest.
The development comes amid wider reports of disagreements among election commissioners over administrative decisions and aspects of electoral-roll management. The issue has also intensified debate about institutional transparency, internal consultation and the procedures governing decisions within the Election Commission.
Nevertheless, the RTI disclosure does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by any individual or confirm every allegation surrounding the controversy. The full contents of the correspondence and the official records associated with it would be necessary to assess the commissioners’ specific concerns.
What Happens Next?
The next important development will be the release of the withheld documents, including the original letters, replies and file notings. These records could provide greater clarity about the reasons for the correspondence and the action taken by the Cabinet Secretariat.
Until those details become available, the confirmed facts remain limited to the existence of the letters, their dates, their receipt and their subsequent forwarding to relevant officials.
The episode highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the functioning of institutions responsible for conducting elections in India. It also underlines the role of the RTI mechanism in establishing an official record of administrative decisions and correspondence.
