Stories
SC Curative Plea Seeks Recall of ECI Appointment Law Verdict, Cites Judge's Son's ECI Role
- •A curative plea has been filed in the Supreme Court to recall its September 23 split verdict regarding the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners.
- •The plea, filed by Dr Jaya Thakur, alleges a conflict of interest involving Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who favored referring the matter to a larger bench.
- •Thakur's plea states that Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, has been a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.
- •The plea argues that this created a "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety" and that Justice Sharma should have disclosed his son's role before hearing the case.
- •The September 23 split verdict saw Justice Dipankar Datta reject the Centre's request for a larger-bench reference, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma favored it, concerning challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Key Questions Answered
The curative plea filed by Dr Jaya Thakur seeks a recall of the September 23 split verdict concerning whether challenges to the law governing Election Commissioner appointments should go to a larger bench, requesting a fresh hearing due to alleged conflict of interest.
The plea alleges that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma favoured referring the matter to a larger bench while failing to disclose that his son, Siddharth Sharma, has served as a standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024, creating an apprehension of bias.
Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the Centre's request to refer the petitions challenging the 2023 law to a larger bench, whereas Justice Satish Chandra Sharma favoured referring the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
