A curative petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking recall of its September 23, 2026 order arising from the constitutional challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The plea has been filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, one of the petitioners in the original proceedings. It raises questions of judicial propriety concerning the participation of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, whose son Siddharth Sharma is stated to be Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petition alleges a “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety.”
Background
The original proceedings challenge provisions of the 2023 law dealing with the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered separate opinions on September 23 over whether the matter required consideration by a larger Constitution Bench.
Justice Datta did not accept the Union government's request for a larger-bench reference, while Justice Sharma took the view that the constitutional questions warranted consideration by a Constitution Bench. Because of the difference of opinion, the judges directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of an appropriate Constitution Bench.
The curative plea states that the petitioner became aware of Siddharth Sharma's professional association with the ECI only after reports published following the September 23 order. According to the petition, the petitioner subsequently verified from the Madhya Pradesh High Court website that Siddharth Sharma had been appearing as ECI Standing Counsel since July 10, 2024.
The petition argues that the connection should have been disclosed before the proceedings commenced and relies on principles governing reasonable apprehension of bias and judicial propriety.
The plea states:
“In the respectful submission of the petitioner, there is a direct conflict of interest in the professional duty of Mr. Siddharth Sharma on behalf of the Election Commission of India and adjudication of lis challenging the appointment of Election Commissioners by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.”
The petitioner has relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra while invoking the Court's curative jurisdiction. The plea also seeks exemption from filing a review petition first, contending that such a review would be considered by the same Bench and therefore would serve no useful purpose.
The petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record Varun Thakur and was settled and certified as fit for curative jurisdiction by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria. The petitioner seeks recall of the September 23 order and a fresh hearing before an appropriate Bench.
The September 23 order directed that the case papers be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of constituting a Constitution Bench to decide the challenge concerning the 2023 Act.
The curative petition now seeks recall of that order and rehearing before an appropriate Bench.
