Dr. Jaya Thakur has filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court seeking recall of the September 23 split verdict in the challenge to the 2023 law on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, contending that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma should not have heard the case because his son has been a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.
New Delhi: A curative petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking recall of the September 23 split verdict in the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, on the ground that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, one of the two judges who delivered it, should not have heard the matter [Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and Another].
The petition is by Dr. Jaya Thakur, the lead petitioner in the challenge. No order on it has been reported, and the contentions summarised below are those of the petitioner, which the Court has not examined. This report is based on the petition as reported and on media accounts of the case.
The ground of the petition
Dr. Thakur contends that Justice Sharma should not have heard the case because his son, Siddharth Sharma, has been a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 10, 2024. She says she became aware of this only after media reports emerged on September 25, two days after the verdict.
The connection was first reported on September 25, citing the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s website, which lists the judge’s son as standing counsel for the Election Commission. Reports have said it is not clear whether the connection was disclosed to the petitioners before the hearing. The Court has not commented on it, and no finding has been made that the connection affected the verdict.
Background of the case
The 2023 Act provides for a selection committee of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and so leaves out the Chief Justice of India, who was part of the interim arrangement laid down by the Supreme Court in the Anoop Baranwal case. The petitions against it were filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, Dr. Thakur and others.
On September 23, 2026, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, which had reserved its decision on July 30, differed on the Centre’s plea to refer the challenge to a larger Bench. Justice Datta held that the Centre’s prayer for a reference was unwarranted, while Justice Sharma held that the challenge should be considered by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. Following the split, the papers were placed before the Chief Justice of India to consider the constitution of a larger Bench.
What a curative petition is
A curative petition is the Supreme Court’s last remedy against its own final judgment, evolved by a Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. It is available where a litigant shows that a violation of the principles of natural justice occurred, including where the judge did not disclose a connection that could give rise to an apprehension of bias. It is ordinarily first considered in chambers by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment.
What happens next
No date of hearing has been reported. The petition asks the Court to recall the September 23 verdict, and it will be for the Court to decide whether a curative petition can be entertained against an order which, as reported, placed the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
Why it matters
The petition raises the question of disclosure and recusal where a judge’s family member is empanelled as counsel for a party to the constitutional challenge. The challenge itself concerns who selects the Election Commissioners, and it now awaits the Chief Justice’s decision on the constitution of a larger Bench.
The petition’s allegations are yet to be examined by the Court, and the Court has not said that the judge acted improperly. Whether the matter goes to a Constitution Bench is a separate question, which is pending before the Chief Justice.
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and Another (curative petition; number not reported)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Verdict Challenged: September 23, 2026 (Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Date Reported: September 29, 2026