Back
CJI Surya Kant to Examine Plea for of on CEC Appointments Law
The has agreed to consider an seeking the of its concerning the of the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, stated on , that the court would “examine and then take a call” on the application. The plea, mentioned by senior advocate , raises serious questions of , alleging that one of the judges on the split bench failed to disclose that his son serves as a standing counsel for the —the very institution whose appointments were under challenge.
Background: The and Its Fallout
On , a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered divergent opinions on whether the batch of petitions challenging the , should be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. Justice Datta declined the government’s request for a reference, holding that the constitutional principles governing independent election appointments were already settled by the five-judge bench in Anoop Baranwal (2023). He observed that the 2023 law, which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union minister on the selection panel, gave the executive a veto and reduced the Leader of Opposition to an “.”
Justice Sharma, however, took a contrary view, arguing that the matter involved a that could not be finally decided by a two-judge bench. He favoured placing the petitions before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench. Despite their difference, the bench passed a directing the papers to be placed before the CJI on the administrative side for consideration of a Constitution Bench reference.
The Bias Allegation: Non-Disclosure of a Family Connection
Shortly after the was delivered, media reports emerged revealing that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma, had been appointed as standing counsel for the ECI before the on —after the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu to the poll body, and continuing through subsequent elevations. The applicant, Naman Sherstra, through advocate , filed the application arguing that this professional engagement of an immediate family member with the very institution whose statutory composition was under challenge created a .
Crucially, the application does not impute “, motive or want of good faith” on Justice Sharma. Instead, it frames a narrower grievance: whether the judge ought to have disclosed the fact of his son’s engagement to the parties during the five hearings held on , , , , and . The application states, “The grievance is much narrower—whether, in view of an existing professional engagement of an immediate family member of the judge concerned with the institution whose statutory composition and with the functionaries of such institution whose appointments were directly under challenge, the judge ought to have disclosed the fact of such engagement to the parties when the proceedings were ongoing?”
It further notes that “it is prudent to assume that the incumbent members of the ECI, and specifically Mr. Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. 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.” The failure to disclose this relationship, the applicant contends, undermines the perceived impartiality of the bench.
Legal Strategy: Versus Curative
During the mention before CJI Surya Kant, Sankaranarayanan clarified that the application is an interlocutory one seeking of the judgment—specifically the opinion of Justice Sharma. It does not seek to disturb the separate opinion of Justice Datta, who had opposed the reference. The senior advocate also informed the bench that another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, had already filed a on , invoking the principle of “ and propriety.” The CJI noted that he was aware of the .
Sankaranarayanan distinguished the application from the , noting that a ordinarily presupposes a , which had not been filed. “Ours is an IA seeking of the judgment. Curative often requires a review,” he submitted. The court did not pass any orders on the and only agreed to examine the application.
and the
The case raises fundamental questions about and the duty of a judge to recuse or disclose potential conflicts of interest. The applicant relies on established principles that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Where a judge’s family member has a professional relationship with a party directly affected by the proceedings, the failure to disclose that relationship can vitiate the legitimacy of the adjudicatory process.
Justice Datta, in his opinion, had already flagged concerns about the 2023 Act, noting that it gave the executive a “” over appointments and undermined the independence of the Election Commission. The itself, by referring the matter to a larger bench, effectively deferred a definitive ruling on the Act’s validity. But the application now threatens to reopen the entire proceeding on procedural grounds, potentially forcing the court to reconsider whether Justice Sharma should have participated at all.
Implications for the Challenge to the 2023 Act
If the Supreme Court allows the application, it could set aside the and order a fresh hearing before a reconstituted bench. This would delay the already protracted challenge to the 2023 law, which has been pending since its enactment. Alternatively, the court might dismiss the application, allowing the to stand and the reference to a Constitution Bench to proceed. The CJI’s decision on the will therefore shape the future trajectory of this high-stakes constitutional litigation.
The case also has broader implications for judicial transparency. The disclosure of family connections is a recurring issue in higher judiciary, and a ruling on this application could clarify the standards expected of judges when their relatives have professional ties to parties or institutions involved in pending matters.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court examines the application, the legal community awaits clarity on both the substantive challenge to the CEC appointments law and the procedural integrity of the bench that heard it. Chief Justice Surya Kant’s decision to “examine and take a call” leaves the door open for a potentially significant ruling on . Meanwhile, the underlying question of whether the 2023 Act violates the constitutional guarantee of remains unresolved, with the having referred that core issue to a larger bench. The outcome of the application will determine whether that reference stands or whether the matter must start afresh before a bench free of any .
