Supreme Court: Curative Petition Challenges Justice Sharma's ECI Role

• A curative petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by Dr. Jaya Thakur, seeking to recall a split verdict on referring challenges to the 2023 ECI Act to a larger bench.
• The petition alleges a conflict of interest against Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, whose son, Siddharth Sharma, serves as a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India since July 2024.
• Justice Sharma had agreed with the Central government's demand for a larger bench referral, while Justice Dipankar Datta rejected it.
• The original petitions challenge Sections 7 and 8 of the 2023 Act, which define the selection panel for Chief Election Commissioner appointments.
• A connected plea also sought quo warranto against the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.

The petitioner contends that this familial connection created a "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety," thereby compromising the impartiality of the proceedings, particularly given Justice Sharma's agreement with the Central government's request for a larger bench referral.

The Supreme Court is currently seized of a curative petition seeking to overturn a recent split verdict concerning the referral of challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, to a larger bench. Filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, the petition specifically targets the participation of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in the original proceedings, alleging a direct conflict of interest.

Dr. Thakur's curative petition argues that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma should have recused himself from the case. This assertion stems from the fact that Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, has been serving as a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024. The petitioner contends that this familial connection created a "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety," thereby compromising the impartiality of the proceedings, particularly given Justice Sharma's agreement with the Central government's request for a larger bench referral.

The curative petition arises from a split decision delivered on September 23 by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The core disagreement revolved around the Central government's demand to refer the petitions challenging the 2023 Act to a larger bench, citing the involvement of a significant Constitutional question. Justice Datta rejected this request, while Justice Sharma concurred with the Centre, leading to the divergent views.

The original petitions specifically contested Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. These sections outline the composition of the selection panel responsible for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, which includes the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister. Additionally, a connected plea sought a writ of quo warranto against the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar, who is now the Chief Election Commissioner, and Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.

The Dr. Jaya Thakur curative petition introduces a critical legal challenge by directly questioning a judge's impartiality based on a perceived conflict of interest involving a family member's professional ties to a party in the case. The argument of "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety" is a fundamental principle in judicial ethics, and its application in this context could set an important precedent for future recusal requests, particularly when a judge's decision aligns with the interests of a party represented by a close relative.

This challenge to Justice Satish Chandra Sharma's involvement underscores the ongoing scrutiny surrounding the Chief Election Commissioner appointments and the broader ECI Act 2023 challenge. The attempt to recall the ECI judgment due to a conflict of interest adds another layer of complexity to the legal landscape governing election commission appointments, potentially influencing how judicial decisions are reviewed when questions of impartiality are raised.

Lawyers should monitor this curative petition as it could establish a significant precedent for challenging judicial decisions based on perceived conflicts of interest, particularly concerning family ties to parties involved. It also underscores the ongoing legal scrutiny and potential instability surrounding the Chief Election Commissioner appointment process under the 2023 Act.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets