Should a judge tell the parties when a close relative is engaged by the institution whose appointments are under challenge? That is the question at the centre of a recall plea in the Supreme Court, which alleges that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not disclose his son’s engagement as the Election Commission’s standing counsel during the hearings on the CEC appointment law. The allegation is the applicants’ own and is untested.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: A recall plea filed in the Supreme Court contends that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not disclose to the parties, at any of the five hearings, that his son works as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while the Court heard the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The Court has recorded no finding on the allegation, and no view on its merits is expressed here [Challenge to the CEC and EC Appointment Act, 2023].
The application arises from the split verdict of September 23, 2026, delivered by a two-judge Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. When it was mentioned on October 7, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said he would examine it and take a decision.
Who is asking, and for what
The application is filed by Naman Sherstra through Advocate-on-Record Pawan Reley, and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned it in court. It seeks recall of the common order of September 23 and of Justice Sharma’s opinion. It expressly does not seek recall of Justice Datta’s opinion.
The applicants say they would have sought Justice Sharma’s recusal had the engagement been disclosed, and that the omission denied them that opportunity before the verdict was delivered.
The non-disclosure allegation
The application states:
“The engagement of Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not disclosed to the parties by Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at any point in time during the 5 hearings in the matter.”
It also describes the grievance as a limited one, framed as a question:
“The grievance is much narrower: whether in view of an existing professional engagement of an immediate family member of the Hon’ble Judge concerned with the institution whose statutory composition and with the functionaries of such institution whose appointments were directly under challenge, the Hon’ble Judge ought to have disclosed the fact of such engagement to the parties when the proceedings were ongoing?”
How the applicants say they found out
According to the application, Justice Sharma’s son was engaged as the Election Commission’s standing counsel on July 10, 2024. The applicants say they learnt of this from a news report on the subject, and then verified it independently through Madhya Pradesh High Court orders dated July 29, 2026 and September 1, 2026, which they say show his appearances for the Commission.
These are statements in the application. The response of Justice Sharma and of the Election Commission, if any, has not been reported.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: CJI To Examine Application Seeking Recall Of Split Verdict On CEC Appointment Law
What happens next
The application awaits the Chief Justice’s decision; no listing date has been reported. The Court has made no finding on the non-disclosure allegation, and the applicants’ contentions remain untested.
Case Details: Challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (recall application by Naman Sherstra) | Court: Supreme Court of India | Before: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant (mentioning, October 7, 2026) | Impugned verdict: split verdict of September 23, 2026 (Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) | Status: Awaiting the Chief Justice’s decision. Allegations untested; no finding by the Court.
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, with Advocate-on-Record Pawan Reley, for the applicant.
