Back
in Supreme Court seeks recall of verdict over Justice SC Sharma's son's ties
A has been filed before the seeking the recall of a delivered on , concerning the of the . The petition, moved by , one of the original petitioners, grounds its plea on a serious allegation of arising from the professional engagement of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma's son with the ().
The September 23 saw Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma differ on whether the petitions challenging the 2023 Act should be referred to a larger bench. While Justice Datta rejected the Centre's request for such a reference, Justice Sharma agreed, leading to an eventual direction to the Chief Justice of India to consider constituting a Constitution Bench to resolve the substantive issues. The now contends that the entire hearing and resulting order are vitiated because Justice Sharma should have recused himself due to his son 's role as a standing counsel for the before the since .
The Allegations of
The
, settled by
and filed through
, invokes the settled principle that
. It argues that the presence of Justice Sharma on the bench created a
"
."
The petitioner claims that she learned of the connection only after the judgment was pronounced, through media reports published on
. Upon verification from the
website, it was confirmed that
was empanelled as standing counsel for the
from
.
The petition states unequivocally:
"In the respectful submission of the petitioner, there is a direct
in the professional duty of Mr.
on behalf of the
and adjudication of lis challenging the appointment of Election Commissioners by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma."
It further asserts that Justice Sharma "ought to have disclosed" his son's professional association before the proceedings commenced, thereby ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice.
Legal Grounds for Curative Relief
The plea relies on the precedent set in , which delineates the narrow grounds for entertaining a , including or a judge's failure to disclose a connection with the parties. The petitioner specifically invokes the "" and "" as articulated by the Supreme Court in earlier cases. Notably, the petition argues that the mere —not proof of —is sufficient to vitiate a judicial order.
In a nuanced certification, Senior Advocate Hansaria wrote:
"I have no doubt that His Lordship has decided the case on its own merits. However, on the principle that justice must not only be done but also seem to be done, it would have been appropriate that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recused himself from hearing the present set of petitions."
This statement underscores the delicate balance between judicial integrity and the perception of impartiality.
Procedural Dimensions: Exemption from Review
The also seeks exemption from the requirement of first filing a , arguing that a review would be heard by the same bench that delivered the , rendering it a futile exercise. This procedural move is rooted in the Rupa Ashok Hurra framework, which permits direct curative petitions in exceptional circumstances where a review would not be effective. The petitioner urges the court to recall the September 23 order and assign the matter to an appropriate bench for a fresh hearing.
Background of the Main Case
The underlying litigation challenges , which establish a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. A connected petition sought against the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar (now CEC) and Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu. During the proceedings, the Centre argued that the matter involved a substantial constitutional question warranting a larger bench, a position Justice Sharma supported while Justice Datta dissented.
The also notes that the Centre's own counter affidavit filed in contained "no whisper or objection" to the matter being heard by a two-judge bench. It was only during oral arguments on , that the Attorney General for India raised the objection under , which mandates that cases involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution be heard by a bench of at least five judges. The petition suggests this belated objection undermines the Centre's claim of urgency.
Implications for Judicial Propriety
The controversy surrounding Justice Sharma's son's engagement raises broader questions about the ethical obligations of judges to disclose potential conflicts, even those arising through family members. While the Supreme Court has established that the "real danger" test applies, the present case highlights the challenge of ensuring transparency in an era where family members often pursue independent legal careers. The petition's reliance on the , rather than , signals a growing expectation that judges must err on the side of caution when a close relative is professionally connected to a party appearing before the court.
Legal experts note that the , if admitted, could set a significant precedent for recusal norms. It could also impact the ongoing constitutional challenge to the CEC appointments by potentially requiring a rehearing before a reconstituted bench. The Chief Justice of India now faces the dual task of considering the curative plea while also deciding on the constitution of a larger bench to hear the substantive issues—a process that the split bench itself expedited by directly requesting a Constitution Bench.
What Lies Ahead
The is yet to be listed before the Supreme Court. If allowed, the September 23 order would be set aside, and the matter would be assigned to a fresh bench for . Even if the curative plea is dismissed on merits, the debate over disclosure obligations is unlikely to fade, especially given the heightened public scrutiny of judicial appointments and the functioning of constitutional bodies like the Election Commission.
For the legal community, the case serves as a stark reminder that the integrity of the judicial process depends not only on the actual impartiality of judges but also on the public's confidence in their neutrality. As the petition eloquently argues, the
requires that
"
."
Whether the Supreme Court will accept this reasoning and take the extraordinary step of recalling its own verdict remains to be seen, but the constitutional questions at stake ensure that this controversy will continue to resonate.
