Supreme Court to examine recall plea on CEC split verdict over judge conflict claim

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to decide whether to hear a plea to recall its recent split verdict on the law governing how Chief Election Commissioners are appointed. The move follows disclosures that the son of one of the judges on the bench represents the Election Commission as a lawyer.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said on Wednesday that the court would examine the application before deciding whether to list it for a formal hearing. The application, brought by petitioner Naman Sherstra and presented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, targets the split ruling delivered on 23 September.

At the heart of the objection is Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, one of the two judges on the bench that heard the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The application points out that Justice Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma, was appointed as a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in July 2024.

Despite this ongoing professional relationship, Justice Sharma did not disclose his son's role to the parties during any of the five hearings held between May and July, the application says.

The petitioner is not claiming actual bias or bad faith. Instead, the application raises a narrower question of judicial propriety: whether a judge is obliged to disclose that an immediate family member is employed by the very institution whose composition and appointments are being challenged in court.

The application notes that two key election officials, Gyanesh Kumar and Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, likely had a direct hand in or knowledge of hiring the judge's son. Their own appointments to the poll body are part of what is being challenged under the law.

The split verdict on the CEC law

The underlying dispute concerns a controversial 2023 law that changed how India’s top election officials are chosen. The law removed the Chief Justice of India from the three-member selection panel, replacing them with a cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister. This gave the ruling executive a two-to-one majority over the leader of the opposition.

On 23 September, a two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered divergent opinions on whether to refer the challenge to a larger, five-judge Constitution Bench. Justice Datta opposed the reference, writing that the 2023 law was on the face of it wrong to ignore an earlier Supreme Court ruling that mandated a neutral selection panel. He warned that the new system gave the government a veto and rendered the opposition leader's role "ornamental". Justice Sharma took the opposite view, supporting the reference.

Ultimately, both judges signed a common order asking the Chief Justice to send the case to a larger bench. The new application asks the court to recall Justice Sharma’s part of that decision.

A separate curative petition was also filed on 29 September by another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, seeking a recall of the verdict due to a "reasonable apprehension of bias".

The matter was originally brought back to Justice Datta, who led the bench that gave the split ruling. However, he directed the lawyers to present it directly to the Chief Justice because the case files had already been returned to the administrative office. Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, confirmed that the court will now review the plea.