A lawyers’ body has asked the Supreme Court to recall two orders passed on the same day by benches that included Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, one referring the challenge to the Election Commissioners appointment law to a Constitution Bench, the other granting interim relief to the Noida District Magistrate, who is the Chief Election Commissioner’s daughter. Its concern, it says, is not that the judge was influenced, but how the circumstances might appear to a fair-minded observer.
New Delhi: The Lawyers Association for Constitution has issued a public statement seeking the recall of two orders passed by the Supreme Court on September 23, 2026 by benches comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and requesting that both matters be heard afresh by benches of which he is not a member, citing reports of a professional connection between the judge’s family and the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The Association has framed its concerns as questions of judicial propriety and public perception, expressly stating that it is not commenting on the merits of either case, and has couched its statement in “deep respect” for the Supreme Court and its role as the guardian of the Constitution.
The two orders
Both matters were heard on September 23. In the first, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split opinion on whether the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 should be referred to a Constitution Bench, with the matter ultimately placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of such a Bench. In the second, a Bench presided over by Justice Sharma stayed the Allahabad High Court’s strictures and its direction to recover compensation from Medha Roopam, the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida); that order, the Association notes, was subsequently revised. Ms Roopam is the daughter of the present Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar.
The basis of the concern
The Association’s statement rests on reports that Justice Sharma’s son is empanelled as a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. According to those reports, which cite the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s website, the son, enrolled in 2017, is also standing counsel for other government bodies. The Association states that it does not know whether this professional connection was brought to the notice of the parties in either matter, and that it is raising the point not on the merits but on how the circumstances may appear to the public. These are the contents of the Association’s statement and of news reports; the professional connection referred to has been reported on the basis of the High Court’s records, and there has been no response, as reported, from the judge or the Court.
Invoking the settled test on bias, the Association observed:
“The Supreme Court has long held that the test in such situations is not whether a judge was in fact influenced. The test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer might reasonably apprehend a possibility of bias. These principles exist to protect judges as much as litigants.”
What the Association has requested
The Association has requested that the order of September 23, as modified on September 24, in the Medha Roopam matter [SLP (Crl) Diary No. 56202/2026, Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary and Others] and the connected matter be recalled, and the matter be listed before the bench that holds the regular roster. It has also requested that the question of referring the challenge to the 2023 Act to a Constitution Bench be heard afresh by a bench of which Justice Sharma is not a member.
Beyond the two cases, the Association has sought clarity on how the Medha Roopam matter came to be listed, and has suggested that the Court consider a transparent protocol on disclosure and recusal where close relatives of a judge are engaged as counsel by a party or an interested institution.
Why it matters
The concern the Association raises is rooted in a well-established principle of judicial ethics: that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Indian courts, following the English tradition, apply the “real likelihood” or “reasonable apprehension” of bias test, under which the question is not whether a judge was actually swayed, which the law does not require to be shown, but whether a fair-minded and informed member of the public, aware of the relevant facts, might reasonably apprehend that the judge could be biased. The doctrine underpins the practice of recusal, by which judges withdraw from cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be doubted.
Whether that threshold is met in any given case is itself a matter of judgment, and the decision to recuse has, in Indian practice, generally been left to the conscience of the individual judge rather than made compellable at the instance of a party. The Association’s suggestion of a transparent protocol for disclosure where a judge’s close relative appears for, or is engaged by, a party or an interested institution speaks to a wider, and much-debated, question about how conflicts of interest, real or perceived, should be surfaced and managed within the judiciary.
It bears emphasis that these are the requests and concerns of an association, set out in a public statement; no court has acted on them, no finding of impropriety has been made against any judge, and the Association itself has been careful to say that it does not allege actual bias and takes no position on the merits. The matters referred to, the constitutional questions on the 2023 Act and the interim relief in the Medha Roopam case, stand as decided by the respective benches unless and until any competent forum orders otherwise. What the statement seeks is a reconsideration of the process and the forum, and a broader reform on disclosure and recusal, questions that lie with the Court to consider.
Statement by: Lawyers Association for Constitution, dated September 25, 2026
Matters referred to: The reference of the challenge to the CEC/EC Appointments Act, 2023 to a Constitution Bench; and the interim order dated September 23, 2026 (as modified on September 24) in Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary and Others [SLP (Crl) Diary No. 56202/2026]
Status: Requests and concerns raised in a public statement; not adjudicated. No finding of impropriety recorded against any judge; the Association states it does not allege actual bias and takes no position on the merits.
