Justice Sharma Didn’t Disclose Son’s ECI Link During CEC Appointment Case Hearing, Petitioner Tells Supreme Court
A fresh controversy has emerged around the Supreme Court’s recent split verdict concerning the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. A petitioner has sought the recall of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s opinion, alleging that the judge did not disclose during the proceedings that his son was serving as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The application was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on October 7. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan brought the matter before the CJI, who said that the Court would examine the plea and take a decision on it.
The controversy relates to a two-judge bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, which delivered separate opinions on September 23 on challenges to the 2023 law governing appointments to the Election Commission.
Justice Datta declined the Centre’s request to refer the constitutional challenge to a larger bench. Justice Sharma, however, took the view that the challenge raised a substantial constitutional question warranting consideration by a Constitution Bench.
The new application has been filed by petitioner Naman Shestra. It alleges that Justice Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma, had been appointed as standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in July 2024 and that this professional association was not disclosed during the five hearings in the case.
According to the application, the hearings took place on May 5, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30. The petitioner argues that disclosure of the relationship would have allowed the parties to consider seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal before the September 23 opinions were delivered.
The petitioner has specifically said that the application does not accuse Justice Sharma of actual bias, improper motive or lack of good faith. Instead, the grievance concerns whether the judge should have disclosed the professional engagement of an immediate family member with the institution whose statutory structure and appointments were under judicial challenge.
The application relies on the principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. It argues that the question of judicial propriety can arise from the appearance or reasonable apprehension of bias, even without establishing that the judge actually acted with prejudice.
Public records cited by the petitioner allegedly show that Justice Sharma’s son has appeared for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The application reportedly annexes High Court orders from July 29 and September 1, 2026, as supporting material.
The development follows an earlier curative petition filed by another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, which also raised concerns about Justice Sharma’s participation in the matter after his son’s role as ECI counsel became known. That petition described the issue as involving a reasonable apprehension of bias and questions of judicial propriety.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the allegation or decided whether Justice Sharma’s opinion should be recalled. The immediate development is that the Chief Justice has agreed to examine the request for listing and further consideration.
The case could therefore bring renewed scrutiny to the September 23 split verdict and, more broadly, to the legal challenge surrounding the 2023 framework for selecting the CEC and Election Commissioners.
Any further decision on recall, recusal or a fresh hearing will determine the next procedural step in the dispute.
