An application was filed in the Supreme Court seeking recall of its September 23 order referring the challenge to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners to a Constitution bench, citing concerns over justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The present application is the second plea for recall. On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma gave a split verdict on whether the 2023 law should be referred to a Constitution bench. He said that substantial questions on the interpretation of the Constitution arise in the matter and under Article 145(3), the same should be heard by a bench of at least five judges of the Supreme Court. A curative petition was filed on Tuesday by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, also a petitioner in the present batch challenging the validity of the 2023 law.
The curative plea sought recall on the ground of a “reasonable likelihood of bias,” based on the same fact linking Justice Sharma’s son to the ECI. It said, “The petitioners state on record that 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 Sharma at any point in time during the five hearings in the matter.”
Justice Sharma held a different view While Justice Datta was of the view that the need does not arise as the challenge to the Act can be considered based on the settled principles laid down by earlier judgments. The two judges passed a common order placing the matter before the CJI for referring the petitions to a Constitution bench.
This fact assumes relevance, Sreshtra said, as Justice Sharma’s son was appointed as the standing counsel for the ECI before the high court on July 10, 2024, after the appointment of the present CEC Gyanesh Kumar and one of the election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, on March 14, 2024.
Going by this principle, the application said that the judge ought to have disclosed the fact of his son’s engagement to the parties appearing in the matter.
