An unusual internal dispute has broken out within India's Election Commission (EC) in New Delhi, with two Election Commissioners formally complaining to the country's top bureaucrat about an attempt to bypass established oversight of the poll body's information technology wing, a function central to the integrity of the electoral rolls and voting infrastructure.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have written to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan raising concerns over a move by a senior EC official, identified as Garg, to alter the file routing arrangements for Seema Khanna, the Director General (IT) who oversees the Commission's technology operations. In their letters, the two Commissioners argued that the change would undermine a layer of scrutiny built into how decisions involving the IT wing are reviewed and approved.

What the Dispute Is About

At the heart of the matter is a seemingly technical question: who signs off on files before they reach the top of the Election Commission's hierarchy. In large bureaucracies such as the EC, the routing of files, the sequence in which officials review, comment on and approve a document, is not a mere administrative formality. It determines who has visibility into a decision, who can raise objections, and who bears accountability if something goes wrong.

By seeking to change how Khanna's files were routed, Garg's move would have effectively altered the chain of command through which decisions on the IT wing pass. Sandhu and Joshi contend that this risked removing a check that currently allows for independent scrutiny of IT-related decisions before they are finalized, a safeguard they argue is especially important given the sensitivity of the EC's technology systems.

Why the IT Wing Matters

The Election Commission's IT wing is responsible for critical functions that underpin India's electoral process, including the management of electoral rolls, the deployment of technology at polling stations, and systems that feed into the broader conduct of elections across the world's largest democracy. Any perceived weakening of oversight over this wing carries particular weight at a time when the Commission is preparing for a slate of upcoming elections and continues to face public scrutiny over the transparency and accuracy of voter data.

The decision to approach the Cabinet Secretary, India's senior-most civil servant who heads the country's bureaucracy, rather than resolve the matter internally, signals the seriousness with which the two Commissioners viewed the attempted change. The Cabinet Secretary's office serves as a channel of last resort for disputes that officials believe cannot or should not be settled quietly within an institution.

A Body Built on Collective Authority

The Election Commission of India is designed as a multi-member body precisely to prevent unilateral decision-making. It typically comprises a Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners, who are expected to function on the basis of consensus and mutual oversight. The decision by Sandhu and Joshi to publicly flag the file-routing change suggests a breakdown in that collegial process, at least on this particular issue, and raises questions about whether decisions affecting sensitive functions like IT oversight were being made without the full knowledge or consent of all Commissioners.

Letters to the cabinet secretary said the move to alter the routing of the DG (IT)'s files undermined an established layer of scrutiny.

Such disputes rarely become public, given the Commission's traditional emphasis on presenting a united front, particularly in the run-up to elections when its credibility is under constant examination from political parties, civil society groups and the courts. That this disagreement has surfaced at all points to a level of concern among the Commissioners that could not be contained through ordinary internal channels.

The Bigger Picture

The episode arrives at a moment when India's electoral machinery is under heightened scrutiny. Questions about the accuracy of voter rolls, the security of electoral technology and the independence of the Commission from executive influence have featured prominently in public debate in recent years. An internal fight over who controls the file trail for the IT wing, even if framed in bureaucratic terms, touches directly on these broader anxieties about transparency and institutional checks within a body whose credibility is meant to rest on its independence and procedural rigor.

It remains to be seen how the Cabinet Secretary will respond to the complaints, and whether the Election Commission will address the matter internally or allow it to become a more prolonged public controversy. What is clear is that the dispute has opened a rare window into the internal workings of an institution that ordinarily operates behind a carefully maintained veil of unanimity, exposing frictions over accountability at a moment when the Commission can least afford questions about its own governance.