Supreme Court Petition Challenges Justice Sharma's Non-Disclosure of Son's ECI Ties
A petition filed in the Supreme Court claims Justice Sharma failed to disclose his son's association with the Election Commission during a critical case hearing.
Justice Sharma's son serves as the standing counsel for the Election Commission.
Petitioners argue that non-disclosure deprived them of the chance to request the judge's recusal.
The Supreme Court will review the petition regarding the split verdict on the Election Commissioners' appointment.
In a significant legal development, a petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court challenging the split verdict delivered by a two-judge bench regarding the appointment of Election Commissioners. The petition alleges that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who was part of the bench, did not disclose his son's role as the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the hearings. This omission, according to the petitioners, prevented them from seeking Justice Sharma's recusal from the case.
The petition, filed by Naman Sherstra, asserts that the engagement of Justice Sharma's son with the ECI was not revealed during any of the five hearings related to the matter. The petitioners contend that had they been aware of this relationship, they would have formally requested the judge to step aside from the proceedings. The split verdict, which was issued on September 23, 2026, involved challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
During a recent hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan brought this application to the attention of Chief Justice Surya Kant, who indicated that he would review the matter. The petition specifically seeks the recall of the common order passed by the bench, which referred the case to a five-judge bench, while clarifying that it does not seek to challenge Justice Datta's opinion.
The petitioners emphasize that their concerns are strictly related to the non-disclosure of Justice Sharma's son's affiliation with the ECI, and they do not intend to imply any bias or ill motive on the part of the judge. They argue that the core issue is whether Justice Sharma should have disclosed his son's professional engagement with the ECI, given the context of the ongoing proceedings.
The petitioners learned of Justice Sharma's son's role with the ECI through a news article after the split verdict was announced. Following their own verification, they confirmed that he has been serving as the ECI's Standing Counsel since July 10, 2024. The application includes references to public records and court orders that demonstrate his regular appearances on behalf of the ECI. The petitioners argue that the situation raises questions about judicial propriety and the necessity for transparency in judicial proceedings, as outlined in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, which emphasizes the importance of justice being not only done but also seen to be done.
