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.
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. 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. 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.
Mr. Justice Datta had reminded that the appointment and functioning of Election Commissioners were integral to free and fair elections. 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.
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. 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”.
