New Delhi: A recall plea before the Supreme Court has raised questions over Justice SC Sharma’s alleged non-disclosure of his son’s professional association with the Election Commission during hearings on the CEC appointment case.
The plea alleges that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not disclose that his son was serving as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) during hearings related to the validity of the 2023 law governing appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners.
The matter has sparked discussions about judicial disclosure, transparency, and whether parties should have been informed of the professional association before the case was heard. The Supreme Court has now agreed to examine the plea.
Details of CEC Appointment Case
The dispute relates to challenges against the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Read also: Why Is The Supreme Court Reviewing The Election Commissioner Appointment Process Again
Several petitioners have argued that the law changed the appointment process for Election Commissioners by replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee. The constitutional validity of the law is currently under judicial scrutiny.
Why Has A Recall Plea Been Filed
According to the application filed before the Supreme Court, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was part of the bench that heard the matter and later delivered a split verdict on September 23, 2026.
The petitioners claim that Justice Sharma did not disclose that his son, Siddharth Sharma, was serving as standing counsel for the Election Commission before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The plea argues that if this information had been disclosed earlier, the petitioners could have considered seeking the judge’s recusal from the case.
No Allegation Of Actual Bias
Importantly, the application does not accuse Justice Sharma of acting with bias or bad faith. Instead, the petition focuses on whether a professional engagement involving an immediate family member should have been disclosed to the parties while the proceedings were underway.
What Does The Recall Application Say
The petition states that Justice Sharma’s son was appointed as ECI Standing Counsel before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in July 2024. According to the applicants, this professional relationship continued during the hearings conducted in 2026.
The petitioners say they became aware of the association only after media reports surfaced following the split verdict. They then independently verified the information through public records and court documents.
Opportunity To Seek Recusal
The application argues that disclosure would have allowed parties to decide whether to request recusal before the verdict was delivered. The plea emphasizes the principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done.
CEC Appointment Case: What Was The Supreme Court’s Earlier Verdict
On September 23, 2026, a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered differing opinions on whether challenges to the 2023 law should be referred to a larger Constitution Bench.
Although the judges differed in their reasoning, both agreed that the matter should ultimately be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Constitution Bench. As a result, the constitutional challenge remains pending for final adjudication.
Supreme Court Agrees To Examine Plea
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan recently mentioned the application before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The Chief Justice stated that the Court would examine the matter and then decide the next course of action. No final ruling has yet been made on the recall request.
CEC Appointment Case: Views On Judicial Disclosure
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka recently commented on the broader issue of judges’ family members serving as lawyers for government agencies. He stated that where a judge’s child is empanelled with institutions such as the ECI, disclosure of that relationship is important, and judges should consider not hearing matters involving that institution. He specifically said Justice Sharma should have disclosed the relationship at the outset.
Read also: Election Commission Power Struggle? Supreme Court Asked To Review CEC’s Alleged Solo Decisions
FAQs
No. The petition specifically states that it does not allege actual bias, bad faith, or improper motive. It focuses on the issue of disclosure and procedural fairness.
The plea alleges that Justice SC Sharma did not disclose that his son was serving as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India during hearings related to the Election Commissioners appointment law.
The Supreme Court has stated that it will examine the application seeking recall or modification of the earlier split verdict and then decide the next course of action.
