Stories
Supreme Court to Review Plea for Recall of Split Verdict on Election Commissioners Law
- •The Supreme Court agreed to consider a plea seeking the recall of its September 23 split verdict regarding the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
- •The application questions why Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not disclose his son Siddharth Sharma's professional association as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India.
- •The underlying split verdict involved Justice Dipankar Datta rejecting a reference to a larger bench due to concerns over executive influence, while Justice Sharma supported sending it to a five-judge bench.
- •Petitioners argue the non-disclosure deprived them of the opportunity to seek Justice Sharma's recusal, though the plea does not allege any bad faith or improper motive on the judge's part.
- •A separate curative petition has also been filed by Jaya Thakur seeking the recall of the September 23 order based on standards of reasonable apprehension of bias.
Key Questions Answered
On September 23, a two-judge Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split verdict on whether to refer challenges against the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, to a larger Constitution Bench. Justice Datta rejected the reference request, noting the law is prima facie inconsistent with an earlier ruling, while Justice Sharma supported a reference to a five-judge Bench.
An application filed by Naman Shestra and a curative petition by Jaya Thakur seek to recall the September 23 verdict due to alleged non-disclosure regarding Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, who serves as standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petitioners argue this professional association created an apprehension of bias and that the non-disclosure deprived them of requesting his recusal.
The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, established a selection panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister, which critics and Justice Datta noted effectively grants the executive a veto on appointments.
