A petitioner in a case challenging the Election Commissioners appointments law, which culminated in a split verdict on September 23, orally mentioned on Thursday (October 1, 2026) his application questioning why one of the judges on the Bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not reveal during multiple court proceedings that his son was a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The application was mentioned before Justice Dipankar Datta, who had been the lead judge on the bench that delivered the split verdict on September 23. Justice Datta asked the petitioner-applicant to mention his plea before the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice was not holding court on Friday (October 2, 2026). The next working day for the court is October 5.

The application was filed by Naman Shestra, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Pawan Reley. Mr. Shestra has sought a recall of the opinion given by Justice Sharma, who was the puisne judge on the Division Bench headed by Justice Datta, on September 23, regarding the question of referring the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, to a five-judge bench.

While Justice Datta, in his opinion, had declined the reference to a Constitution Bench, Justice Sharma took an opposing view in favour of the reference. Eventually, both judges on the Bench had passed a common order for the Chief Justice of India to allocate the case to a Constitution Bench.

Editorial | Selection and election: On the appointment of Election Commissioners

The application has objected to this common order but did not challenge, specifically, the separate opinion given by Justice Datta.

Justice Datta had observed in his opinion that the 2023 law was prima facie wrong to ignore an earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, which had included the Chief Justice of India as a neutral member in the Prime Minister-led selection panel for Chief Election Commissioners (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). The 2023 law had replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Justice Datta had said the replacement gave the Executive veto power over CEC/EC appointments, and reduced the presence of the Opposition Leader of the Lok Sabha in an ornamental status on the panel. Justice Datta had reminded that the appointment and functioning of Election Commissioners was integral to free and fair elections.

The split verdict may delay a final pronouncement on the vital question regarding the validity of the 2023 law.

Subsequent to the September 23 verdict, media reports had alleged that Justice Sharma’s son was a standing counsel for the ECI.

Another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, has already filed a curative petition on September 29 to recall the split verdict, alleging “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety”.

Mr. Shestra, though similarly seeking a recall, did not impute “actual bias, motive or want of good faith” on the part of Justice Sharma.

“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?” Mr. Shestra’s application was asked.

The application said, “Siddharth Sharma (son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) was appointed as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 10, 2024, after the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu to the poll body.”

“This engagement has continued since the elevation of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC and the appointment of Dr. Vivek Joshi. 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 about the appointment of Siddharth Sharma as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court,” the application said.

The application said “the engagement of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not disclosed to the parties by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at any point in time during the five hearings in the matter on May 5, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30”.

“The petitioners state that, had the engagement of Mr. Siddharth Sharma as standing counsel for the ECI been disclosed during the hearings, they would have requested that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recuse from the present batch. The absence of disclosure deprived the petitioners of an opportunity to raise that request before the opinions and order dated September 23 were pronounced,” the application submitted.