1 hr ago
Curative Petition Challenges Split Verdict On Election Commission Appointment Law
Jaya Thakur has asked India’s Supreme Court to reconsider a recent decision.
The decision was about a law for choosing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
The judges who heard the case disagreed about whether a larger bench should examine the law.
Thakur says one judge’s son works as a lawyer for the Election Commission in another court.
She believes this could make people worry that the case was not decided fairly.
She says the judge should have disclosed this family connection.
She is asking the Court to use a special legal process called a curative petition.
The government had agreed that the case raised important constitutional questions and should go to a five-judge bench.
Jaya Thakur has filed a curative petition seeking recall of the Supreme Court’s September 23 split verdict.
The petition alleges a possible conflict of interest because Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son represents the Election Commission before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
It argues that Justice Sharma should have disclosed his son’s association with the Election Commission before hearing the case.
Thakur seeks to bypass the usual review stage, saying a review would ordinarily return to the same bench.
The original split verdict concerned whether challenges to the 2023 appointment law should go before a larger Constitution bench.
- Who
- Jaya Thakur filed the petition; it concerns Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, the Election Commission of India, and the Union government’s position.
- What
- A curative petition seeks recall of the Supreme Court’s September 23 split verdict and raises alleged judicial bias and propriety concerns.
- Where
- The matter is before the Supreme Court of India and involves Siddharth Sharma’s representation of the Election Commission before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- When
- The petition was reported on September 30, 2026; the split verdict was delivered on September 23, 2026.
- Why
- The petition alleges a reasonable apprehension of bias because Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son represents the Election Commission, a party connected to the dispute.
Petitioner’s concerns
Government and institutional position
Whether the decision was affected by possible bias
Petitioner’s concerns
Jaya Thakur alleges that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son’s professional representation of the Election Commission created a reasonable likelihood of bias and should have been disclosed.
Government and institutional position
The article does not report a finding by the Supreme Court that bias occurred; the allegations remain claims made in the curative petition.
Whether a larger bench should hear the law challenge
Petitioner’s concerns
The petition seeks to undo the September 23 decision while raising concerns about the circumstances in which it was delivered.
Government and institutional position
The Centre submitted that the challenges raise seminal constitutional questions and should be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench.
Whether the review stage should be bypassed
Petitioner’s concerns
Jaya Thakur argues that a review would normally return to the same bench and that no useful purpose would be served by requiring one first.
Government and institutional position
Supreme Court rules ordinarily provide for a review petition before a curative petition, with reviews generally considered by the judges who issued the original decision.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Jaya Thakur
- Filing advocate
- Varun Thakur
- Challenged decision
- The Supreme Court’s September 23, 2026 split verdict
- Disputed legislation
- Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023
- Main allegation
- A possible conflict of interest involving Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma
- Requested remedy
- Recall of the split verdict and exemption from first filing a review petition
- Constitutional issue
- The 2023 law excludes the Chief Justice of India from the appointment selection panel
Quotes
Jaya Thakur
Petitioner who filed the curative petition challenging the circumstances of the Supreme Court’s split verdict
“In the respectful submission of the petitioner, there is a direct conflict of interest in the professional duty of Siddharth Sharma on behalf of the Election Commission of India and adjudication of lis challenging the appointment of Election Commissioners by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma... Because justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Questions over Justice Sharma’s son serving as ECI counsel
Supreme Court Splits Over Larger Bench for Election Law
Supreme Court Split Over CEC Appointment Larger Bench
Supreme Court Split Over Election Commissioner Appointment Law Reference
Supreme Court Splits Over Larger Bench For CEC Law
Why India’s 2023 Election Commissioner Law Faces Supreme Court Review
Opposition Plans Protests and Fresh Impeachment Bid Against CEC
Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Response on ILBS Free Treatment
Criticism Grows Over Election Roll Revision and Court Oversight
Bengal government challenges Milan Pradhan’s interim bail in Supreme Court
