सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने चुनाव आयोग के प्रमुखों की नियुक्ति पर पुनः विचार का आदेश, न्यायाधीश पर पक्षपात का आरोप

Supreme Court to Look Again at Verdict on How Election Chiefs Are Picked, After Bias Concern

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine an application seeking recall of its September 23 split verdict on challenges to the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.

The application raises an apprehension of bias against Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, one of the two judges who delivered the verdict, after it emerged that his son is standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the plea before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. "We will examine and then take a call," the CJI said.

Sankaranarayanan also told the court that another party has filed a curative petition against the split verdict.

The Modi Years

02 Oct 2026 - Vol 05 | Issue 40

A Nation Rebuilt

WHAT WAS THE EARLIER VERDICT

The verdict came on petitions challenging the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed on whether the pleas should be referred to a larger bench.

Justice Datta held that a reference was unnecessary, while Justice Sharma favoured one. The issue was ultimately referred to a five-judge bench and placed before the CJI for directions. The verdict did not decide whether the 2023 Act is valid.

THE BIAS ALLEGATION

According to the application, Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, has been standing counsel for the Election Commission before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 10, 2024. It says the bench heard the matter on five occasions and that Justice Sharma neither disclosed the engagement nor recused himself.

The applicants seek recall of Justice Sharma's opinion and a fresh hearing. They do not seek to wipe out Justice Datta's separate opinion. When the plea was first mentioned last week, Justice Datta asked the applicant to place it before the CJI. The sources I found carry no response from Justice Sharma or the Election Commission.

A curative petition invoking "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety" has also been filed by Dr Jaya Thakur, one of the petitioners in the case.

WHY THE 2023 LAW IS CONTESTED

In March 2023, a Constitution bench in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India ruled that the President would appoint the CEC and Election Commissioners on the advice of a panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the CJI. That arrangement was to hold until Parliament passed a law.

Parliament did so in December 2023. The new Act replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister, so the committee now comprises the Prime Minister, that minister and the Leader of Opposition. It also set up a search committee headed by the Union Law Minister to prepare a panel of candidates.

Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the NGOs ADR, PUCL and Lok Prahari challenged the law, including Section 7, which excluded the CJI from the panel. They argue it weakens safeguards for the poll body's independence and hands the executive control of appointments.

The Supreme Court declined an earlier plea to stay the law. In February 2025, the Centre appointed Gyanesh Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner under the 2023 Act. A two-judge bench began hearing the challenge in May 2026.

WHY IT MATTERS NOW

The question of how election commissioners are appointed is at the centre of the wider row over the Election Commission, with opposition parties demanding the removal of Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the dispute over Form 6. The Supreme Court heard a related plea on Monday.

With inputs from ANI

Powered by Nyaya 247 News