Questions of judicial propriety have been raised in legal circles after it emerged that the son of Supreme Court judge Justice Satish Chandra Sharma is empanelled as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, even as Justice Sharma sat on two recent matters connected to the ECI and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
New Delhi: Questions of judicial propriety, framed by legal commentators as a matter of perception rather than proven bias, have surfaced following reports that the son of Supreme Court judge Justice Satish Chandra Sharma is the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The concern has gained traction because Justice Sharma was recently part of Benches that dealt with two high-profile matters connected to the ECI and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
At the outset, it must be stated that what has been raised are questions of propriety and institutional perception; there is no finding, or even an allegation on record, that any judicial decision was in fact influenced, and a sitting judge is entitled to the presumption of propriety. The facts set out below, concerning the professional empanelment of the judge’s son and the composition of the Benches, are drawn from public records and from the reporting on the issue.
What the records show
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s records list Justice Sharma’s son, who was enrolled as an advocate in 2017, as the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India. He is also reported to be the standing counsel for the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Department. His younger son, reported to have enrolled in 2020, is stated to be the standing counsel for the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. Justice Sharma, a former judge and senior advocate of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was elevated to the Supreme Court in November 2023.
The significance attributed to this, in the commentary, lies not in any suggestion of actual influence but in the well-known principle that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. The concern raised is one of perception: whether a dispassionate observer might question the position where a judge hears matters involving an entity for which the judge’s child appears as counsel in a High Court. These remain questions of propriety canvassed by commentators, and nothing has been adjudicated.
The two matters and the concerns raised, at a glance
| Matter | Bench / forum | Subject | Concern raised (as reported) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medha Roopam petition | Bench headed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma | Plea against Allahabad HC strictures and a Rs 5 lakh salary-recovery direction over an NSA detention | Petitioner is CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s daughter; plea said to have been listed out of the subject roster; live feed muted during hearing; interim relief granted |
| ECI Appointment Act challenge | Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma | Challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of the CEC and Election Commissioners | Justice Sharma favoured a reference to a Constitution Bench, resulting in the final ruling being deferred |
| ECI standing counsel | Madhya Pradesh High Court | Panel counsel representing the Election Commission of India | Justice Sharma’s son is listed as the ECI’s standing counsel, per the High Court’s records |
The Medha Roopam listing, and a lawyers’ body’s letter
One of the two matters is the petition of Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida) District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who is CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s daughter. She had challenged an Allahabad High Court judgment that recorded strictures against her and directed the recovery of Rs 5 lakh compensation from her salary in connection with a detention under the National Security Act; a Bench headed by Justice Sharma granted her interim relief, staying the strictures and the recovery direction.
The Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC), in an open letter dated September 24 to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, questioned the “out-of-turn” listing of that petition. The association pointed out that, under the Supreme Court roster in force from July 13, matters relating to preventive detention were assigned to certain senior Benches, including one led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and asked why Roopam’s plea came to be listed before the Bench that heard it. The body argued that preferential treatment to a matter involving the family member of a senior public official could set a wrong precedent and does not enhance public confidence in the judicial process. It also flagged the muting of the live-streamed feed during the hearing. These are the contentions of the lawyers’ body; the Supreme Court administration has not, as reported, responded to them on record.
The ECI Appointment Act reference
The second matter is the constitutional challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel for the CEC and ECs with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. On September 23, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered differing opinions: Justice Sharma took the view that the challenge should be referred to a Constitution Bench, while Justice Datta favoured deciding it without further delay. In consequence, the matter stands referred to a larger Bench, deferring a final ruling. Justice Sharma’s opinion, as reported, leaned towards the position that the selection committee could not be regarded as biased merely because it was executive-heavy.
The recusal-and-disclosure debate
The commentary has invoked the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, the code of judicial conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, which, among other things, counsels a judge against hearing a matter in which a member of the judge’s family or close relations is connected as counsel or is otherwise interested. Legal observers have raised the question of whether, and to what extent, any disclosure was made regarding the professional association between the judge’s family and the poll panel, and whether recusal considerations were engaged. Those are questions that have been posed in the public debate; the position of the judge, and of the Supreme Court, on any disclosure or recusal has not been reported, and the raising of these questions is not, in itself, a finding of any impropriety.
Why it matters
The episode sits at the intersection of two sensitive themes: the independence and perceived impartiality of the judiciary, and the ongoing political controversy surrounding the Election Commission, its internal functioning and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which has seen the Opposition mount street protests and demand the CEC’s resignation. The doctrine that justice must be seen to be done, and the norms in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, exist precisely to safeguard public confidence in adjudication, and it is against that backdrop that the questions of perception have been raised.
It bears repeating that these are, at this stage, questions of propriety and perception canvassed in legal commentary and by a lawyers’ body, not findings of a court or of any disciplinary authority. The empanelment of the judge’s son as counsel and the composition of the Benches are matters of public record; whether any impropriety attaches to the sequence of events is neither established nor alleged as a matter of proof, and a sitting judge remains entitled to the presumption of propriety. How, if at all, the Supreme Court’s administrative side or the Chief Justice responds to the concerns raised, including in the lawyers’ body’s letter, remains to be seen.
Reported context: open letter dated September 24, 2026 of the Lawyers Association for Constitution to the Chief Justice of India. The two matters referred to are the petition of Medha Roopam (heard by a Bench headed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) and the challenge to the 2023 Election Commissioners’ appointment law (Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma).