New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued a fresh work-allocation order, formally setting out the distribution of responsibilities among senior officials following the internal administrative dispute that surfaced in July between Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi and a senior Commission official.
The new order, reported on November 5, follows the latest administrative exercise undertaken by the Commission on November 4. It covers key functional areas, including Administration, Information Technology (IT) and Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS), and seeks to establish a clearer division of responsibilities and reporting arrangements within the organisation.
The development comes nearly four months after Sandhu and Joshi objected to an earlier revision of work allocation, which they alleged had been made without prior consultation or approval of the full Commission. The fresh arrangement is being viewed as an important administrative development in the wake of that controversy.
#BreakingNews | Election Commission says its work allocation orders are based on unanimous decisions of the Commission
It clarifies that there has been no change in the reporting structure of DG IT. @nirajjournalist with more details https://t.co/iLX0jNqAcc
— News18 (@CNNnews18) November 5, 2026
July Order Triggered Objections From Two Election Commissioners
The controversy originated on July 28, 2026, when Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, who was holding additional charge of the Administration Division during the absence of Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, issued a revised work-allocation order.
The order altered the distribution of responsibilities among senior officials, particularly concerning IT and grievance-related work. It also changed the reporting arrangements involving the IT division and other departments.
Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi objected to the changes, alleging that the revised allocation had been issued without discussing the matter with them or obtaining the Commission’s approval. Both subsequently wrote separate letters to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan on July 29, raising concerns over the procedure followed and seeking appropriate action.
Sandhu alleged that the order assigned responsibilities to Garg himself and affected officers senior or equivalent to him. Joshi also raised concerns over the absence of consultation and alleged that he was not provided access to the relevant administrative file when he sought it.
RTI Disclosures Added to the Controversy
The issue attracted further attention in October after an RTI application filed by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.) brought the correspondence and internal file notings of the Cabinet Secretariat into the public domain.
The documents revealed that the Cabinet Secretariat acknowledged the two Commissioners’ letters and forwarded the matter to the office of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
The Secretariat’s internal observations indicated that the complaints had been submitted by the Commissioners in their individual capacities and did not constitute an official communication from the Commission as a whole. It also cautioned that executive intervention in the matter could be construed as interference in the functioning of a constitutional body.
The RTI disclosures established the receipt and circulation of the complaints but did not confirm that any formal inquiry or disciplinary action had been initiated.
ECI Had Earlier Clarified That July Order Was Not Implemented
On September 26, the Election Commission issued a clarification stating that the disputed work-redistribution orders had not actually been implemented following directions from the two Election Commissioners.
The Commission also maintained that the Deputy Election Commissioner’s oversight of the IT division had never actually been withdrawn. It further stated that important decisions concerning the Commission’s functioning and electoral exercises had received the approval of the full Commission.
The September clarification was significant because it addressed questions surrounding the administrative chain of command and the functioning of the IT division, which plays a crucial role in maintaining electoral databases and supporting the country’s election-management infrastructure.
Fresh Allocation Brings Focus Back to Administrative Accountability
The latest work-allocation exercise is expected to provide greater clarity over departmental responsibilities, reporting arrangements and administrative coordination among senior officials.
Administration, IT and Public Grievance Redressal are important components of the Election Commission’s day-to-day functioning. Their effective coordination is essential for managing electoral rolls, maintaining digital systems, facilitating communication with state election authorities and addressing voter-related complaints.
While the fresh order represents a new administrative development following the July controversy, its actual impact will depend on how the revised responsibilities are implemented and followed within the Commission.
The development has once again drawn attention to the importance of transparent administrative procedures, clearly defined reporting structures and institutional coordination within India’s constitutional election-management body.
