Election Commissioner Appointments: Conflict Bias Alleged in Top Court Order on CEC Law as Petitioner Demands Recall
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
A fresh petition filed before the Supreme Court has sought the recall of a split verdict on the validity of the 2023 law governing Election Commission appointments, alleging a direct conflict of interest involving Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
The petition, filed by Dr Jaya Thakur, contends that Justice Sharma should have recused himself from hearing the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. According to the filing, Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, has served as a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.
Curative Plea Cites Lack of Propriety and Disclosure
The split judgment, delivered on September 23, saw one judge favor referring the constitutional challenge to a larger bench, a stance aligned with the Central government's preference—while the other judge disagreed.
The petitioner stated in the curative petition that details regarding the engagement of Justice Sharma’s son as ECI counsel only emerged through news reports on September 25. The plea asserts that the judge ought to have disclosed this relationship prior to the start of the hearing to uphold public trust in judicial integrity.
"On the principle that justice must not only be done but also seem to be done, it would have been appropriate that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recused himself from hearing the present set of petitions," noted Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who settled the petition and certified it as fit for curative jurisdiction. Hansaria clarified that while he had no doubt the judge decided the matter purely on merit, institutional propriety warranted a recusal.
Bypassing Review Route to Seek Direct Relief
The applicant sought an exemption from the requirement of filing a standard review petition first. The petition argues that listing a review before the same bench would serve no useful purpose, asking the top court instead to exercise its extraordinary curative powers to recall the September 23 order and assign the matter to an appropriate bench for a fresh hearing.
The filing also pointed out that the Central government's counter-affidavit submitted in May 2026 contained no objection regarding the jurisdiction of a two-judge bench to adjudicate the validity of the ECI appointment law.
