Serious questions regarding judicial propriety have surfaced after official records revealed that the son of Supreme Court judge Justice Satish Chandra Sharma serves as the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The disclosure has triggered intense debate in legal circles, particularly because Justice Sharma recently presided over two high-stakes cases involving the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

Special Listing for CEC Daughter's Case Raises Roster Concerns

Controversy deepened over the last-minute allocation of a petition filed by Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Roopam approached the top court challenging strictures and a Rs 5 lakh salary recovery order passed by the Allahabad High Court over an improper National Security Act detention. Despite another bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna already hearing connected matters, Roopam’s plea was specially assigned to a bench headed by Justice Sharma outside the regular subject roster.

Muted Feed and Interim Relief Granted to Gautam Buddh Nagar DM

During the hearing, the bench muted the live video conferencing feed, restricting media access to proceedings. The court subsequently granted interim relief to Medha Roopam, staying the High Court’s adverse remarks and the salary recovery direction.

The Lawyers Association for Constitution sent an open letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, expressing concern over out-of-turn listings and the muting of public proceedings. The association noted that such special assignment to a specific bench fails to enhance public confidence in the judicial process.

Split Verdict on ECI Appointment Law Adds to Debate

The propriety concerns extend to Justice Sharma's participation in the constitutional challenge to the 2023 Election Commissioners' Appointment Act. On the same day as the Roopam hearing, Justice Sharma delivered a split opinion alongside Justice Dipankar Datta, insisting that the challenge must be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

While Justice Datta sought to adjudicate the challenge immediately to prevent delay, Justice Sharma's insistence on a larger bench effectively deferred the final ruling on the selection process for election commissioners.

The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life mandates that judges avoid presiding over matters where family members represent involved statutory bodies or litigating entities. Legal observers continue to question whether formal disclosures were made regarding the professional link between the judge's family and the poll panel.