SC Split Verdict Recall Sought Over Judge's Son's EC Ties

A significant development has emerged in the ongoing legal battle concerning the appointment of Election Commissioners. A petitioner, Naman Shestra, has approached the Supreme Court seeking the recall of a split verdict delivered on September 23, 2026, in a case challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Shestra's application, mentioned orally before Justice Dipankar Datta, the lead judge on the bench that delivered the split verdict, questions why Justice Satish Chandra Sharma — the other judge on the bench — did not disclose that his son serves as a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (EC). Justice Datta has since directed the petitioner to mention this plea before the Chief Justice of India.

The original case, heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Datta and Justice Sharma, saw a split in opinion regarding the referral of the constitutional validity challenge of the 2023 Act to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

Justice Datta had declined the referral, while Justice Sharma favored it.

Despite their differing views, both judges ultimately issued a common order for the Chief Justice of India to allocate the case to a Constitution Bench.

Mr. Shestra's application specifically objects to this common order.

Justice Datta, in his separate opinion, had critically observed that the 2023 law appeared to disregard an earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case. That precedent had included the Chief Justice of India as a neutral member in the Prime Minister-led selection panel for CEC and ECs.

The new 2023 law replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, a change Justice Datta argued gave the Executive a veto power and reduced the Opposition Leader's role to mere tokenism.

The petitioner's grievance, articulated by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Pawan Reley, is not an imputation of actual bias but rather a question of propriety and disclosure. The application highlights whether a judge should have disclosed a professional engagement of an immediate family member with an institution whose statutory composition and functionaries' appointments were directly under challenge.

According to the application, Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, was appointed as standing counsel for the EC before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 10, 2024.

This development comes amidst media reports alleging the conflict of interest following the September 23 verdict.

Another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, had already filed a curative petition on September 29, seeking to recall the split verdict, citing “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety.” The ongoing legal challenges underscore the vital importance of ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission, an institution central to free and fair elections in India.

#SupremeCourt #ECIAppointments #JudicialEthics #ConflictOfInterest