Plea Filed in Supreme Court to Recall CEC-EC Appointment Split Verdict

Home / Top Stories Plea Moved Before Supreme Court For Recall Of CEC-EC Appointment Split Verdict X In the split verdict Justice Dipankar Datta had rejected the plea for reference to a larger Bench, while Justice SC Sharma held that the challenge to the 2023 law raised a substantial constitutional question warranting consideration by a Constitution Bench. Supreme Court last month had delivered a split verdict on challenge to 2023 law governing appointment of CEC and Election Commissioners. An application has been moved before Supreme Court of India seeking to recall the split verdict delivered last month by a division bench of the court on whether petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, should be referred to a larger Bench. In the said judgment, the Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma differed on the preliminary question of reference, with Justice Datta rejecting the plea while Justice Sharma held that the matter warranted consideration by a Constitution Bench. Today, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned an application before CJI Surya Kant led seeking recall of Supreme Court's recent split verdict in the challenge to 2023 law on appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. "There is a split verdict on the Chief Election Commissioner issue. We have mentioned an application for recall of the judgment. I mentioned the case before Justice Dipankar Datta-led Bench. He asked us to mention the matter here because the matter has been released from his board," Sankaranarayanan told the bench. "We will examine and take a call," the CJI said in response. Notably, a curative petition has also been filed before the Supreme Court seeking relief against its September 23, 2026 order in the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The curative petition filed under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and Order XLVIII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, invokes the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. The petitioner's principal contention is that Justice Sharma ought not to have participated in the proceedings because his son, Siddharth Sharma, is the Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The curative has therefore alleged a “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety” in Justice Sharma's participation in the case, particularly since the proceedings directly challenged the statutory framework governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. The underlying challenge was filed against Sections 7 and 8 of the 2023 Act. Section 7 provides for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The writ petitions were heard on merits on May 6, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30, 2026 by Justices Datta and Sharma. During the proceedings, the Attorney General and subsequently the Solicitor General raised objections concerning the maintainability of the petitions being heard by a two-judge Bench, relying on Article 145(3) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules. On September 23, both judges delivered separate opinions. Justice Datta held that there was no constitutional bar or precedent preventing the present Bench from hearing the petitions and rejected the plea for reference to a larger Bench. Justice Sharma, however, held that the petitions could be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of cons