Archive · 2 Oct 2026
Curative plea seeks recall of split verdict on election appointments
Jaya Thakur has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider an earlier decision about a law governing election appointments.
The earlier decision was split because two judges disagreed.
The law leaves the Chief Justice of India out of the group that selects the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
Thakur says one judge may have had a conflict because his son works as a lawyer for the Election Commission in another court.
She says the judge should have disclosed this connection.
She is asking for the earlier decision to be recalled through a curative petition.
The case may also be sent to a larger five-judge bench.
The government had said the issue was important enough for such a bench.
The Supreme Court has not yet been reported as deciding the curative petition.
Jaya Thakur has filed a curative petition seeking recall of the Supreme Court’s September 23 split verdict.
The petition alleges a reasonable apprehension of bias 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 the family connection and recused himself from the case.
The original bench differed on whether challenges to the 2023 election appointments law should go before a larger Constitution Bench.
The Centre supported referral of the petitions to a five-judge Constitution Bench to address questions of constitutional importance.
- Who
- Jaya Thakur filed the curative petition; the matter concerns the Supreme Court, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the Election Commission of India and the Centre.
- What
- A plea seeks recall of the September 23 split verdict concerning challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
- When
- The split verdict was delivered on September 23, and the curative petition was reported as filed on September 30.
- Where
- The proceedings are before the Supreme Court; the alleged professional connection involves the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- Why
- The petition alleges a reasonable apprehension of bias and seeks reconsideration of whether the challenge should be heard by a larger Constitution Bench.
Petitioner’s position
Referral and procedural position
Alleged judicial conflict
Petitioner’s position
Jaya Thakur argues that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son representing the Election Commission created a reasonable likelihood of bias, and that the judge should have disclosed the connection or recused himself.
Referral and procedural position
The report does not provide a response from Justice Sharma, his son or the Election Commission to the allegation.
How the challenge should proceed
Petitioner’s position
The petitioner seeks a curative remedy and exemption from an initial review, arguing that a review would return to the same bench and serve no useful purpose.
Referral and procedural position
The Centre said the constitutional questions were sufficiently important to be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench; the original bench directed the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration of an appropriate bench.
- Petitioner
- Jaya Thakur
- Challenged law
- Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023
- Earlier decision
- A split verdict issued by Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma on September 23
- Main allegation
- Justice Sharma’s son was reportedly empanelled as Election Commission counsel before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Requested action
- Recall of the split verdict and exemption from first filing a review petition
- Potential bench
- A five-judge Constitution Bench was proposed for authoritative adjudication
- Government position
- The Centre said the petitions raised seminal constitutional questions warranting referral to a five-judge bench