The application questions why one of the judges on the apex court Bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not reveal during multiple court proceedings that his son was a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI). File
| Photo Credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (October 7, 2026) agreed to examine and take a call on hearing an application seeking a recall of a split verdict pronounced on September 23 in a case challenging the Election Commissioners’ appointments law.
The application, orally mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, questions why one of the judges on the apex court Bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not reveal during multiple court proceedings that his son was a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The application, filed by Naman Sherstra, was mentioned the previous week before Justice Dipankar Datta, who was the lead judge on the Bench which gave the split verdict.
Justice Datta had asked Mr. Sankaranarayanan to mention the application before the Chief Justice as the records of the case had already been returned to the CJI.
Mr. Sherstra has sought a recall of the opinion given by Justice Sharma, who was the puisne judge on the Division Bench headed by Justice Datta, on September 23 on the question of referring the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Bench.
While Justice Datta, in his opinion, had declined the reference to a Constitution Bench, Justice Sharma took an opposing view in favour of the reference. Eventually, both judges on the Bench passed a common order for the Chief Justice of India to allocate the case to a Constitution Bench.
The application has objected to this common order, but did not challenge, specifically, the separate opinion given by Justice Datta.
Justice Datta had observed in his opinion that the 2023 law was prima facie wrong to ignore an earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, which had included the Chief Justice of India as a neutral member in the Prime Minister-led selection panel for Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) and Election Commissioners (ECs). The 2023 law had replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Justice Datta had said the replacement gave the Executive veto power over CEC/EC appointments and reduced the presence of the Opposition Leader of the Lok Sabha to an ornamental status in the panel. Justice Datta had reminded that the appointment and functioning of Election Commissioners were integral to free and fair elections.
Subsequent to the September 23 verdict, media reports had alleged that Justice Sharma’s son was a standing counsel for the ECI.
Another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, has already filed a curative petition on September 29 to recall the split verdict, alleging “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety”.
Mr. Shestra, though similarly seeking a recall, did not impute “actual bias, motive or want of good faith” on the part of Justice Sharma.
“The grievance is much narrower- whether, in view of an existing professional engagement of an immediate family member of the judge concerned with the institution whose statutory composition and with the functionaries of such institution whose appointments were directly under challenge, the judge ought to have disclosed the fact of such engagement to the parties when the proceedings were ongoing?” Mr. Sherstra’s application has asked.
The application said, “Siddharth Sharma (son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) was appointed as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 10, 2024, after the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu to the poll body”.
“This engagement has continued since the elevation of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC and the appointment of Dr. Vivek Joshi. It is prudent to assume that the incumbent members of the ECI, and specifically Mr. Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, had a direct role and/or had direct knowledge of the appointment of Siddharth Sharma as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court,” the application said.
The application said, “The engagement of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not disclosed to the parties by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at any point in time during the five hearings in the matter on May 5, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30”.
Published – October 07, 2026 12:40 pm IST
