NEW DELHI: A curative plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking recall of its September 23 split verdict on referring challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, to a larger bench, alleging that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma should not have heard the case as his son is standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Filed by Jaya Thakur, the curative plea says Justice Sharma, who concurred with the Centre's position that the matter should be referred to a larger bench, ought to have recused himself due to a direct conflict and a "reasonable apprehension of bias", since his son Siddharth Sharma has been standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.
On September 23, Justices Dipankar Datta and Sharma gave divergent views on pleas challenging Sections 7 and 8 of the 2023 Act, which provides for a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet minister.
Justice Datta held that no reference was needed, while Justice Sharma said a substantial constitutional question arose under Article 145(3).
Justice Datta also questioned the neutrality of the mechanism for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners under the 2023 law, observing that a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister could not be expected to oppose the prime minister during the selection process.
The bench subsequently directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for consideration of a larger bench.
The petitioner says she learnt about her son's engagement with the ECI only after media reports on September 25.