A curative petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking recall of its September 23 split verdict concerning the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, citing concerns of judicial propriety arising from the professional association of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son with the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The petition, filed by one of the petitioners, Dr Jaya Thakur, invokes the grounds of “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety.” It states that after the split verdict was pronounced, and it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Justice Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma, is ECI’s standing counsel before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The petitioner subsequently verified the information from the Madhya Pradesh High Court website and found that Siddharth Sharma had been empanelled as ECI counsel since July 10, 2024.
The plea contends that the case falls within the Supreme Court’s tests of “reasonable likelihood of bias” and “real danger” of bias, and that Justice Sharma’s participation consequently vitiated the September 23 proceedings.
The petition states that there was a direct conflict between Siddharth Sharma’s professional duties representing the ECI and Justice Sharma adjudicating a challenge concerning the appointment of Election Commissioners.
It further argues that judicial propriety required Justice Sharma to disclose his son’s professional association with the ECI before the commencement of proceedings.
“Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done,” the petition states, submitting that a judge should not decide a case in which a family member represents one of the parties, even before a different forum.
The curative petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Varun Thakur under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and Order 48 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, relying on the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
The petitioner has also sought exemption from first filing a review petition, arguing that such a petition would be placed before the same bench and therefore “no useful purpose would be served”. The plea has been certified by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria.
The September 23 split verdict was delivered by a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. While Justice Datta held that the Union’s request for reference to a larger bench was unwarranted, Justice Sharma favoured such a reference.
The judges ultimately directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Constitution Bench of appropriate strength, observing that referring the preliminary issue to a three-judge bench would cause further delay.
Justice Datta had also raised concerns regarding executive interference in the judicial appointments process while rejecting the Union’s argument that an executive-dominated body could appoint Election Commissioners on the analogy of judges appointing judges.
The post Curative petition seeks recall of split verdict on Election Commissioners appointment law, cites reasonable apprehension of bias appeared first on India Legal.