ECI restores oversight of IT wing after workflow issue

1. At a Glance

• What it is: an internal administrative reorganisation in the Election Commission of India (ECI) about who supervises its Information Technology (IT) department, the unit that runs the Commission's digital systems, including electoral roll management systems [1].
• What happened: a July 28 (2026) order let the IT head report directly to the Commission. A fresh order dated October 4 puts a Deputy Election Commissioner (DEC) back in charge of oversight [1].
• Why UPSC cares: the case shows how a multi-member Commission governs itself. It touches on how the Election Commissioners relate to the secretariat, how much the executive (the Cabinet Secretary) should be involved, and the security of electoral-roll data. All of these fall under GS-II (constitutional bodies) [1].

2. Why in the News

• Oct 4 (2026): ECI issued a fresh order. IT head Dr. Seema Khanna must now send IT/ICT and Grievances/Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) files through Senior DEC Pawan Kumar Sharma [1].
• This reversed a July 28 order by Senior DEC Maneesh Garg that had let her report directly to the Commission [1].
• The July order led two Election Commissioners to write to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29 [1].
• The Hindu reported the change on 6 November 2026, "more than three months after the row" [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Before July 2026: DEC Sanjay Kumar held charge of the IT and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) divisions, so the IT head reported through him [1].
• 2025: Dr. Seema Khanna joined the ECI on deputation from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and became head of its IT department [1].
• July 28: Senior DEC Maneesh Garg, who held interim charge of the Administration Department, issued an internal work-allocation order. It took IT/ICT charge away from Sanjay Kumar and gave Dr. Khanna "a free hand" to report directly to the Commission [1].
• July 29: Election Commissioners S.S. Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan about Dr. Garg's work-allocation order [1].
• Oct 4: a new order restored DEC-level oversight, this time through Senior DEC Pawan Kumar Sharma [1].
• ECI's position: ECI sources said there was "no change" (the article excerpt is cut off at this point) [1].

4. Core Static Facts

† Standard static fact. It was not found in a whitelisted source during this session, so check it against the Constitution or the bare Act.

Key terms

• DEC (Deputy Election Commissioner): a senior secretariat officer of the ECI. A DEC is not one of the constitutional Commissioners.
• ICT: Information and Communication Technology.
• PGRS: Public Grievance Redressal System [1].

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Under Art. 324, the "Commission" means the CEC and the ECs acting together. Secretariat officers such as DECs carry out the Commission's decisions; they do not hold that authority themselves † [1].
• When two ECs objected to a secretariat order, it raised a question: can a secretariat officer reallocate work without the full Commission's approval? [1]
• Writing to the Cabinet Secretary, who is an executive functionary, sits awkwardly with the ECI's autonomy from the executive [1].

Ethical / Governance

• Under the July order, the IT head reported directly to the Commission with no DEC in between. That removed a layer of internal oversight over a sensitive data unit [1].
• The October order brings back hierarchical file-routing, which strengthens the checks over the IT unit [1].
• Election Commissioners disagreeing in public, and taking it outside the Commission, can hurt public trust in the poll body.

Scientific / Technological (data governance)

• The IT department runs the digital infrastructure for electoral roll management [1].
• Who supervises access to voter-roll systems is therefore a matter of data integrity and cybersecurity, not just routine administration.

Administrative

• Senior IT staff come on deputation (here, from NIC). That raises questions about whom they answer to: their parent body or the host body [1].
• The July order came from an officer holding interim charge of Administration. This is a reminder to define clearly what an interim charge allows an officer to do [1].
• Putting grievance redressal (PGRS) together with IT/ICT under one Senior DEC concentrates citizen-facing digital services in one place [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2025: Seema Khanna joined the ECI from NIC as head of IT [1].
• 28 July 2026: Senior DEC Maneesh Garg's work-allocation order removed DEC Sanjay Kumar from IT/ICT and let the IT head report directly to the Commission [1].
• 29 July 2026: ECs S.S. Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan [1].
• 4 October 2026: fresh order sending IT/ICT and Grievances/PGRS files through Senior DEC Pawan Kumar Sharma [1].
• 6 November 2026: reported in The Hindu, Chennai edition, p. 16 [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The ECI's IT head, Dr. Seema Khanna, came on deputation from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) in 2025 [1].
• NIC comes under MeitY, not the Ministry of Law & Justice †.
• The July 28 order was issued by Senior DEC Maneesh Garg, who held interim charge of the Administration Department [1].
• The July order took IT/ICT charge away from DEC Sanjay Kumar [1].
• ECs S.S. Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, not to the President or the Law Minister, on July 29 [1].
• The Cabinet Secretary at the time was T.V. Somanathan [1].
• The October 4 order sends IT/ICT and PGRS files through Senior DEC Pawan Kumar Sharma [1].
• PGRS stands for Public Grievance Redressal System [1].
• A Deputy Election Commissioner is a secretariat officer, not a constitutional member of the ECI † [1].
• The ECI draws its authority from Article 324 of the Constitution †.
• The appointment of the CEC and ECs is now governed by the 2023 Act, which replaced the 1991 Act †.

8. Why the Cabinet Secretary Sent the Complaint Back

• The executive refused to step in
• Records obtained under RTI (Right to Information) show that the Cabinet Secretariat took no action on the two ECs' complaints [2].
• It said that acting on a complaint from two Election Commissioners, without an official letter from the Election Commission as a whole, could be seen as "interference in the functioning of the constitutional body" [2].

• The complaints were sent on to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar [3].

• Why this matters for the exam

• The government itself admitted that it cannot settle quarrels inside the ECI. Its own officers drew the line that Article 324 implies.

• So the dispute went back to the place it came from: the Commission, led by the CEC [3].

• What the ECs were actually arguing

• Their complaint was a legal one. They said the July work-allocation order broke the CEC and ECs Act, 2023 [2].
• This means the row was about who has the power to give out work inside the ECI. It was not just about one officer.

9. Were the Two ECs Right to Go Outside the Commission?

• The strongest case for the two ECs
• A secretariat officer (a Senior DEC) changed who supervises the IT unit. The IT unit handles electoral-roll systems [1].
• The ECs said this order was against the 2023 Act [2]. If a staff officer can redraw lines of control without the members agreeing, then the members lose real control over their own body.

• There is no separate tribunal or written internal process where an EC can challenge a secretariat order. Writing to the head of the civil service may have felt like the only route left.

• Why the argument still fails

• The Cabinet Secretary is part of the executive. Asking the executive to correct the ECI invites the very outside control that the ECI's independence is meant to keep out.
• The Cabinet Secretariat said this itself: acting without the full Commission's request could be "interference" [2].

• The right forum was inside the Commission. The complaints ended up there anyway, with the CEC [3].

• What the ECs got right

• The October 4 order brought back DEC-level checks on the IT unit [1]. The order they objected to was, in effect, reversed.
• The episode shows a real gap. There is no clear written rule on who can reallocate work in the ECI secretariat, and nothing that tells members how to escalate when they disagree with one.

10. The Deeper Problem: The ECI Does Not Control Its Own Staff

• The ECI's secretariat is staffed by officers lent from elsewhere
• Officers come on deputation, which means they are lent from another government service for a fixed period. The ECI's own advertisements fill posts "on deputation basis" [7].
• The IT head herself came from NIC, which is under MeitY [1].

• An officer on deputation goes back to the parent department later. Their promotions and future career depend partly on that department, not only on the ECI.

• This has been flagged for over 30 years

• The Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms accepted in principle that the ECI should have an independent secretariat [5].
• The government even put this into the Constitution (Seventieth Amendment) Bill, 1990. That Bill was withdrawn in 1993 [5].
• In its 2008 reform proposals, the ECI itself asked that its secretariat be protected from executive interference in appointments and promotions [5].
• Both the Goswami Committee and the ECI wanted a secretariat like those of the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, the Supreme Court and the High Courts [4].

• Law Commission Reports 244 and 255 also called for strengthening the ECI's office to make it more independent [6].

• How it links to this row

• Without its own service rules, the ECI relies on internal orders, like the July 28 and October 4 orders, to decide who reports to whom.
• Such orders are easy to change and easy to dispute. That is exactly what happened here [1].

11. Was the July Order Ever Actually Used?

• The reports do not agree
• The Hindu says the October 4 order "restores" oversight, which suggests the July order took effect [1].

• But the ECI told the RTI-based reports that the July orders were never implemented [2]. ECI sources also told The Hindu there was "no change" [1].

• How to use this in an answer

• Do not write that the IT unit worked without any checks for three months. That is not proven.
• What is proven is the weakness in the rules: one officer holding interim charge could issue an order that, on paper, removed a layer of checks over electoral-roll systems [1].

12. What Should Follow

• Parliament should give the ECI its own secretariat
• This would carry out the Goswami Committee recommendation, which the Seventieth Amendment Bill, 1990 once tried to do [5].
• The model is the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats, whose staff answer to the House, not to a ministry [4].

• Staff with their own cadre (a separate service with its own posts and promotions) would answer to the Commission alone, not to a parent department.

• The ECI should write down who can change work allocation

• Any change to who supervises sensitive units such as IT/ICT, which run electoral-roll systems, should need the approval of the full Commission (CEC and ECs). It should not be possible through an order from an officer holding interim charge [1].

• This would remove the legal doubt the ECs raised under the 2023 Act [2].

• The Commission should settle disputes among its members inside the Commission

• When members disagree, the matter should be put before the full Commission and decided there, with the decision recorded.
• The Cabinet Secretariat has already shown that the executive will not, and should not, act as the referee [2].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: The Cabinet Secretariat refused to act on the ECs' complaints, saying it could amount to "interference in the functioning of the constitutional body" (RTI reply, Oct 2026) [2]
• Report/Committee: Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms, which recommended an independent ECI secretariat [4][5]; Law Commission Reports 244 and 255 (2015), which called for strengthening the ECI's office [6]; ECI's own Proposed Electoral Reforms (2008) [5]
• Law/Case: Article 324; CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 (the ECs said the July order broke it) [2]; Constitution (Seventieth Amendment) Bill, 1990, withdrawn 1993 [5]
• Comparison: The secretariats of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Supreme Court and High Courts, which are independent of the executive. This is the model proposed for the ECI [4]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: appointment to various constitutional posts, and the powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies (ECI). Also Salient features of the Representation of People's Act.
• GS-II: governance, transparency and accountability; e-governance.
• GS-III: cybersecurity / data protection (electoral-roll data).
• GS-IV: institutional integrity; probity in governance.

Possible question stems

1. "The autonomy of the Election Commission depends as much on its internal governance as on its constitutional insulation." Discuss in light of recent controversies over work allocation within the ECI.
2. Examine the challenges of making the Election Commission's digital infrastructure for electoral rolls secure and accountable. Suggest institutional safeguards.
3. Should differences among members of a multi-member constitutional body be settled internally or through the executive? Critically analyse with reference to the ECI.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 324 and the structure of the ECI: the constitutional basis for the Commission's powers.
• CEC & ECs Act, 2023 and Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): debates on appointment and independence.
• Multi-member ECI (since 1993) and decision by majority: how the Commission resolves disagreements among its members.
• Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls: the main reason electoral-roll IT systems are under scrutiny.
• National Informatics Centre (NIC) and MeitY: where the deputationist came from; government IT backbone.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: legal framework for protecting voter data.
• Role of the Cabinet Secretary: limits on the executive's role over independent bodies.
• EVM/VVPAT and ECI tech platforms: other parts of the ECI's technology governance.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Election Commission of India (Polity): The article is about how the ECI governs itself internally, so its powers and structure are central.
• Election Commissioners (Polity): Two Election Commissioners objected to the work-allocation order, so their role and equal say in decisions matters.
• Electoral roll (Polity): The IT wing runs electoral roll systems, which is why its oversight is sensitive.
• Constitutional body (Polity): Explains why the ECI is meant to stay independent of the executive, which the Cabinet Secretary letter puts in question.
• e-Governance (Polity): The IT/ICT wing and grievance redressal system are examples of technology used to run government services.
• Accountability (Polity): Routing IT files through a Deputy Election Commissioner is about keeping a sensitive unit answerable and checked.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• DEC vs EC: Deputy Election Commissioners (Garg, Sharma, Sanjay Kumar) are secretariat officers. Sandhu and Joshi are Election Commissioners. Do not mix them up [1].
• Two different Senior DECs: Maneesh Garg issued the July order; Pawan Kumar Sharma is the route under the October order [1].
• Parent organisation: Khanna came from NIC (MeitY), not from C-DAC or CERT-In [1].
• Recipient of the letter: it went to the Cabinet Secretary, not the CEC, the President or the Law Ministry [1].
• Order of dates: July 28 (order) → July 29 (letters) → Oct 4 (restoring order) → Nov 6 (reported) [1].