Back
Medha Roopam Listing Raises Recusal Questions for Justice Sharma in Supreme Court
The is once again at the center of a debate over judicial transparency and the administration of its roster. An opinion piece by advocate has brought to light two cases that raise serious questions about roster allocation, , and the . The cases involve a challenge by Medha Roopam, the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and a challenge to the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners. Both were heard by a bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N Kotiswar Singh on , despite the published roster assigning such matters to a different bench. The article argues that the departure from the roster, coupled with the judge's son being for the Election Commission, creates a troubling appearance that demands transparency.
The Master of Roster Under the Microscope
The "
" doctrine vests the Chief Justice of India with the authority to allocate cases and constitute benches. This power has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India
(2017) and
Shanti Bhushan v.
(2018). However, Mohananey emphasizes that this power is administrative, not personal.
"The CJI is
and the roster exists to organise the Court’s work, not to place the Court’s judicial power in one individual’s hands,"
he writes. The problem arises when the published roster is treated as the rule, but exceptions are made without any public record of who authorized the departure or why.
A Preventive Detention Case Goes Off-Roster
The first case involves Medha Roopam, the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar, challenging an
judgment that quashed the
detention of Delhi University student Akriti Chaudhary. Under the Supreme Court's published roster,
and
matters were assigned to a bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna. Yet the case was heard by Justice Sharma's bench.
"A special assignment is not, by itself, unlawful. But that is precisely why the question cannot be brushed aside: who authorised the departure from the ordinary roster and where is that departure recorded?"
Mohananey asks. The ambiguity was compounded when the bench, after briefly hearing arguments, muted the audio and closed media access to the video feed for the remainder of the hearing. No reason was publicly given for this restriction.
When a Judge's Son Appears for a Party
Adding to the sensitivity, Justice Sharma's son is the
for the
before the
. On the same day, Justice Sharma also heard a challenge to the 2023 law on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. While Justice Sharma did not decide the merits—he referred the case to a
—the article argues that the circumstances warranted a disclosure and consideration of
.
"The issue is not whether influence can be proved after the event. It is whether the circumstances were sufficiently close to require the judge to step aside to protect the
,"
Mohananey writes. The
has since called for the orders to be recalled and for greater clarity on listing and
protocols.
The Double Standard
The article draws a parallel to an earlier case involving Arvind Kejriwal, who sought the
of
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the excise policy litigation due to her children's professional association with government legal work. Justice Sharma eventually recused. But Mohananey argues that this inconsistency highlights the lack of a clear, consistent standard.
"If appearance matters, the Court must say clearly when that appearance becomes unacceptable.
cannot be left to the personal discretion of individual judges, with one standard applied in one case and another elsewhere,"
he notes. The Kejriwal case demonstrates that
is not an admission of bias but a safeguard against the appearance of conflict.
The Need for Structural Transparency
The core of the controversy lies in the opacity of roster management. The published roster is meant to ensure fair and predictable case allocation. When exceptions are made without explanation, the public loses confidence in the system. Mohananey distinguishes between being "
" (exercising institutional power) and "mastering the roster" (using that power to shape outcomes). The Medha Roopam listing brings this distinction into sharp relief. The article concludes that while the CJI needs roster power to organize the Court, that power becomes dangerous when exercised opaquely.
"A roster that applies strictly to other litigants but mysteriously changes when a politically sensitive case arrives is not a transparent roster. It is a roster with an undisclosed second layer. That second layer is where accountability begins to disappear."
Conclusion
The concerns raised in the article are not about actual bias but about the and the lack of transparency in roster allocation. For legal professionals, this case underscores the importance of clear standards and the need for a transparent system of case allocation that is immune to even the perception of manipulation. As the Supreme Court continues to assert its authority over the roster, the demand for accountability and disclosure will only grow louder. The question is whether the Court will take steps to codify these standards or leave them to the discretion of individual judges—and whether the public will accept the latter.
