A group of lawyers is seeking a fresh hearing in CEC’s legal challenge, Noida DM case

Justice Sharma headed the division bench which on September 23 passed the interim order in an appeal filed by Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam, daughter of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. File. | Photo credit: Special arrangement

An advocacy group on Friday (September 25, 2026) issued a public statement demanding the recall of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment against Noida District Judge Medha Roopam and demanding that the petitions challenging the Act appointing the Chief Election Commissioner be heard afresh.

A statement issued by the Constitutional Lawyers Association and circulated online by Supreme Court advocate Subhash Chandran KR urges that both matters be heard by a high court that does not include Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Justice Sharma headed the division bench which passed the interim order on September 23 in an appeal filed by Ms. Roopam, daughter of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

On the same day, Justice Sharma dissented with Justice Dipankar Datta on whether the challenge to the CEC/EC Act 2023 should be referred to a five-judge bench. Justice Datta ruled against a reference to a constitution bench and decided to immediately hear the merits of the case against the 2023 Act, while Justice Sharma favored the reference.

Due to the partition decision, the matter is now pending before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a constitution bench, causing further delay in the final decision.

A group of lawyers cited two main concerns gleaned from public reports. One, on the “wrong listing” of Ms. Roopam’s case before Justice Sharma’s Bench, which did not maintain a list for habeas corpus petitions. The association further pointed to “public reports” stating that “Judge Sharma’s son is promoted as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court”.

“We do not know whether this was communicated to the parties in either case. . . . We would like to state that we are not concerned with the facts themselves, but with how these circumstances may appear to the public. The Supreme Court has long held that the test in such situations is not whether the judge was actually influenced. The test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer could reasonably foresee the possibility of bias,” the bias statement said.

The Bar Association also called on the apex court to consider a transparent disclosure and recusal protocol when “close relatives of judges are engaged as lawyers by a party or interested institution”.

Published – 25 Sep 2026 23:09 IST