New Delhi, Sept. 30: A curative petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking recall of its September 23 split verdict and common order in the challenge to the law governing the composition of the committee for selection of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, alleging that one of the two judges — Justice Satish Chandra Sharma — who heard the matter was in a conflict-of-interest situation.
Petitioner Jaya Thakur has contended that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ought to have disclosed that his son, advocate Siddharth Sharma, has been serving as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.
The plea seeks recall of the order and a fresh hearing before an appropriate bench. It contends that Siddharth Sharma’s engagement as ECI counsel gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and raised an issue of judicial propriety, irrespective of whether the case was decided on merits.
According to the petition, Thakur learnt about Siddharth Sharma’s engagement as ECI counsel only through media reports on September 25. It argues that disclosure before commencement of the hearing was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rupa Ashok Hurra, the petitioner has contended that non-disclosure of a connection with a party in the lis under adjudication can furnish a ground for invoking curative jurisdiction and that the appearance of bias, rather than proof of actual bias, is relevant to such a plea.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, who settled the curative petition and certified it as fit for consideration, has stated that there was no doubt that Justice Sharma decided the case on its merits. He has, however, submitted that, applying the principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done, recusal would have been appropriate.
The petition has also sought exemption from first filing a review petition, contending that such a plea would ordinarily come before the same bench.
On September 23, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered differing opinions on the Centre’s plea to refer the challenge to the 2023 law to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Justice Datta rejected the request, holding that the controversy involved application of settled constitutional principles, while Justice Sharma favoured consideration by a Constitution Bench.
Despite their differing views, both judges directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for constitution of an appropriate bench to examine the challenge to the 2023 law.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
