The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a plea seeking the recall of its recent split verdict concerning the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. The development comes after questions were raised over the participation of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in the earlier proceedings and the alleged non-disclosure of his son's professional association with the Election Commission of India. The matter has now brought judicial propriety, possible conflict of interest and the process for appointing India's top election officials back into focus. The application was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan placed the matter before the bench. The CJI indicated that the court would examine the plea before taking a decision.

Why Has the Supreme Court Been Asked to Recall Its Earlier Verdict?

The latest plea is connected to a September 23 split verdict delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. The original proceedings involved challenges to the 2023 election law, particularly the provisions governing the appointment of the CEC and Election Commissioners. The two judges expressed different views on whether the constitutional questions raised by the petitions should be considered by a larger Constitution Bench. Justice Datta did not agree with the Centre's request for a larger-bench reference, while Justice Sharma took the view that the matter raised substantial constitutional questions that warranted consideration by a larger bench. Because the two judges differed, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of an appropriate larger bench.

The New Issue: Justice Sharma's Son and the ECI

The recall plea has raised a separate issue relating to Justice Sharma's son. According to the application, the petitioners later came to know that Justice Sharma's son had been engaged as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The plea alleges that this association was not disclosed to the parties during the hearings. The petitioners have argued that had they known about the professional connection earlier, they could have sought Justice Sharma's recusal from the matter. It is important to note that these are allegations and grounds raised in the plea. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled that Justice Sharma was actually biased or that the earlier verdict was legally invalid because of this issue.

What Does the Plea Say About Possible Bias?

The application has invoked the principles of judicial impartiality and propriety. It argues that a judge's family connection with a lawyer representing one of the parties can create concerns about the appearance of impartiality, even where no actual personal bias is alleged. The petition refers to the principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. It argues that the alleged non-disclosure prevented the petitioners from raising a recusal request before the September 23 opinions were delivered. The petitioners have therefore sought reconsideration of the earlier proceedings through an appropriate bench. The plea also refers to the legal standards of "reasonable likelihood of bias" and the "real danger test" while arguing that Justice Sharma's participation should be examined in that context.

Read Also: PM Modi Gives ‘We Will Do It’ Slogan for Developed India by 2047

What Happened in the September 23 Split Verdict?

The September 23 proceedings centred on whether challenges to the appointment mechanism under the CEC appointment law should be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Justice Datta and Justice Sharma reached different conclusions on that question. Justice Sharma considered that the petitions raised substantial constitutional questions that could justify consideration by a Constitution Bench. Justice Datta, on the other hand, did not find a need to make such a reference. Despite their disagreement, the matter ultimately moved to the Chief Justice for consideration of the appropriate bench. This split decision is important because the underlying challenge concerns the legal framework used to appoint India's top election officials.

What Is the 2023 Law on Election Appointments?

The dispute involves the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. One of the major changes introduced by the law concerns the composition of the selection committee. The 2023 framework replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The three-member committee therefore consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the nominated Union Cabinet minister. Petitions challenging the law have questioned whether this arrangement meets constitutional requirements concerning the independence of the election machinery.

Why Is the Appointment Process So Important?

The Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners have a central role in India's electoral system. The Election Commission oversees elections and performs constitutional and statutory functions that directly affect the country's democratic process. For this reason, the manner in which election commissioners are selected has become an important constitutional issue. The petitions challenging the 2023 framework raise questions about the balance between executive participation and institutional independence. Justice Dipankar Datta had also stressed in his earlier opinion that independence of the Election Commission is important and that the institution must also be perceived as independent.

Supreme Court Also Told About a Curative Petition

During Wednesday's hearing, the CJI also referred to a curative petition that had already been filed in connection with the matter. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan confirmed that another party had filed such a petition. A separate curative petition had previously raised similar concerns about Justice Sharma's son's professional association with the ECI and sought reconsideration of the September 23 proceedings. The existence of multiple challenges means the Supreme Court is now dealing with more than one request connected with the same split verdict.