सुप्रीम कोर्ट के विभाजनित निर्णय पर केंद्र की याचिका: सीईसी नियुक्ति कानून में हित संघर्ष का दावा

IndiaConflict of interest allegation in CEC case as plea seeks recall of SC's split verdict

The development comes after a two-judge bench delivered split opinions on September 23 on the Centre's plea seeking reference of the challenge to the 2023 law to a larger Constitution Bench.

A plea seeking recall of the Supreme Court’s split verdict in the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) appointments law case was mentioned before Chief Justice Surya Kant on Tuesday, amid a separate curative petition alleging a conflict of interest involving one of the judges.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, mentioned the recall application before a bench comprising CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

The CJI said, “We will examine and take a call on the issue.”

Sankaranarayanan said the split verdict concerned the CEC appointments law and that the Justice Dipankar Datta-led bench had asked him to mention the matter before the CJI-led bench after it was released from that bench’s board.

On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging Sections 7 and 8 of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Under the Act, the selection panel comprises the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister. A connected plea challenged the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar, now CEC, and Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.

The Centre argued that the case raised an important constitutional question and should be referred to a larger bench. Justice Datta rejected the request, while Justice Sharma agreed. The bench urged the CJI to consider constituting a Constitution Bench.

Separately, Dr Jaya Thakur has filed a curative petition alleging that Justice Sharma should not have heard the matter because of a direct conflict of interest.

Thakur has argued that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias because Justice Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma, has been standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.

She has also sought exemption from filing a review petition, arguing that it would be listed before the same bench and serve no useful purpose.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who settled the petition and certified it as fit for curative jurisdiction, said he had no doubt that Justice Sharma had decided the case on its merits. However, he added that, “on the principle that justice must not only be done but also seem to be done”, it would have been appropriate for Justice Sharma to recuse himself from hearing the petitions.

The New Indian Express

www.newindianexpress.com

Powered by Nyaya 247 News