Archive · 8 Oct 2026
Supreme Court to Examine Recall Plea in Election Commission Verdict
The Supreme Court is considering a request to take back an earlier decision about an election law case.
Two judges had disagreed about whether a larger group of judges should hear the case.
One judge wanted a larger bench, and the other did not.
A new application says there may be a conflict because one judge’s son worked as a lawyer for the Election Commission in Madhya Pradesh.
That allegation has not been decided in the article.
A separate petition was also filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur.
The Chief Justice said the court would examine the recall request but gave no date for a decision.
The Supreme Court agreed to consider an application seeking recall of a split verdict about referral of challenges to the 2023 election commissioners law to a larger bench.
The September 23 split verdict was delivered by Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Justice Datta opposed referring the challenge to a larger bench, while Justice Sharma supported referral to a five-judge Constitution bench.
A fresh application alleges a conflict of interest because Justice Sharma’s son was standing counsel for the Election Commission in Madhya Pradesh.
A separate curative petition was filed by Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Jaya Thakur; the Chief Justice made no ruling on its maintainability or set a timetable for considering the recall plea.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Surya Kant, and applicants seeking recall of the split verdict.
- What
- The court agreed to examine an application seeking recall of a split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 law should go to a larger Constitution bench.
- When
- The agreement to consider the application was reported on Wednesday; the split verdict was delivered on September 23.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The application seeks recall of the split verdict and cites an alleged conflict of interest involving Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son, who was standing counsel for the Election Commission in Madhya Pradesh.
Against referral
For referral
Whether to send the legal challenge to a larger bench
Against referral
Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the Centre’s plea to refer the challenge to a larger bench.
For referral
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma supported referring the challenge to a five-judge Constitution bench, in line with the Centre’s plea.
- Law at issue
- A 2023 law governing appointments of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners.
- Selection panel change
- The law excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel.
- Split verdict date
- September 23.
- Judges on split bench
- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
- Recall application
- The Supreme Court agreed to examine an intervention application seeking recall of the judgment.
- Conflict allegation
- The application cites that Justice Sharma’s son was standing counsel for the Election Commission in Madhya Pradesh.
- Separate petition
- Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Jaya Thakur filed a curative petition on September 30.