Petitioner challenges CEC, ECI Appointments Act files suit in Supreme Court

In the judgement, Justice Dipankar Datta, Chief Justice of the Division Bench, declined to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution Bench | Photo credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap

The lead petitioner challenging the Election Commissioners Appointment Act filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep 29, 2026) to set aside the September 23 split verdict in the case, citing “reasonable apprehensions of bias”, alleging that the son of one of the presiding judges, Justice Sharma of India Satish, is serving as standing counsel for El.

In the judgement, Justice Dipankar Datta, chief justice of the division bench, declined to refer the case to a five-judge constitution bench. Justice Sharma, on the other hand, was of the view that the petitions should be heard by a constitution bench. Ultimately, the Bench passed an order to send the case back to the Chief Justice of India to consider the formation of a five-judge Bench to hear the case.

The split verdict stalled an immediate hearing and eventual judgment on the merits of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure) Bill, 2023. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union minister in a three-member selection panel, giving the government a dominant role in the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner.

The judge’s son is an advisor to the ECI

“The curative petition is filed on the basis of ‘reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety’ by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma to hear the writ petition as his lordship’s son Mr. Siddharth Sharma is standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and has directly and substantially challenged the Election Commission’s appointment file by the present process of proceeding of the Chief Election Commission. petitioner Jaya Thakur, represented by advocate Varun Thakur.

The complainant said that she learned about the alleged details about the judge’s son only after the judgment was delivered and from media reports, after which she verified them herself from the High Court website.

The curative plea said the September 23 judgment was “void due to the presence of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on the bench”.

Bypasses the review request

Applications for review usually precede actions in the Supreme Court. In this case, however, the petitioner bypassed the review stage and immediately submitted a remedial proposal.

In her petition, Ms. Thakur sought exemption from filing a review application. She explained that under Order XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, “an application for review shall, as far as practicable, be sent to the same judge or bench which passed the judgment or order to be reviewed”.

“The filing of a review petition would not serve any useful purpose as the same would be brought before a bench of which Justice Satish Chandra Sharma would be a member and there is an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias against the judge,” the petition said.

Published – 29 Sep 2026 22:21 IST