CJI agrees to take call to hear plea challenging split verdict in CEC appointment legal case

The petition asks why one of the judges on the Supreme Court bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not disclose during several court proceedings that his son was the standing counsel of the Election Commission of India (ECI). File | Photo credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (Oct 07, 2026) agreed to examine and accept a call to hear a plea challenging a split verdict handed down on 23 September in a case challenging the Election Commissioners Appointments Act.

The petition, which was orally mentioned by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, questions why one of the judges on the Supreme Court bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not disclose during several court proceedings that his son was the standing counsel of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The petition, filed by Naman Sherstra, was mentioned last week before Justice Dipankar Datta, who was the chief justice of the bench that delivered the partition verdict.

Justice Datta 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 sought recall of the opinion of Justice Sharma, who was a judge in a bench headed by Justice Datta on September 23 on the issue of referring the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure) Act, 2023 to a five-judge bench.

While Justice Datta in his opinion rejected the reference to the Constitution Bench, Justice Sharma took a contrary view in favor of the reference. Finally, the two judges on the bench passed a joint order for the Chief Justice of India to assign the case to a constitution bench.

The suit objected to that joint order, but did not specifically challenge Judge Datta’s separate opinion.

In his opinion, Justice Datta observed that the 2023 Act was prima facie wrong in ignoring the earlier judgment of the Constitutional Court in the Anoop Baranwal case, which included the Chief Justice of India as a neutral member in the selection committee for Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) and Election Commissioners (ECs) headed by the Prime Minister. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Justice Datta said the replacement gave the executive a veto over the appointment of the CEC/EC and reduced the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha to a decorative status on the panel. Justice Datta reminded that the appointment and functioning of election commissioners are an integral part of free and fair elections.

After the September 23 verdict, media reports claimed that Justice Sharma’s son was ECI’s standing counsel.

Another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, had already filed a curative petition on September 29 to challenge the split verdict alleging “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety”.

Mr. Shestra, while similarly seeking an appeal, did not allege “actual bias, motive or lack of good faith” on the part of Justice Sharma.

“The complaint is much narrower – whether, having regard to the existing professional engagement of the immediate family member of the judge in question with the institution whose statutory composition, and with the officers of such institution, whose appointment was directly challenged, the judge should have disclosed the fact of such engagement to the parties during the proceedings? Mr. Sherstra’s application asked.

The application said, “Siddharth Sharma (son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) has been appointed ECI Standing Counsel before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 10 July 2024 after Gyanesh Kumar and Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu were appointed to the electoral body”.

“This involvement has continued since the elevation of Gyanesh Kumar to CEC and the appointment of Dr. Vivek Joshi. It is reasonable to assume that the incumbent members of the ECI, namely Mr. Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, had a direct role and/or had direct knowledge of the appointment of Siddharth Sharma prior to the request of the Praa, Praha, Madha High Court.

The application stated, “The employment of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son as standing counsel for ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not disclosed to the parties by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at any point during the five hearings in the matter on May 5, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30”.

Published – October 7, 2026 12:40 PM IST