Two questions have become tangled in the debate over the Supreme Court’s September 23 order in Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary: whether Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ought to have sat on the matter, and whether the stay he passed was legally sound. The answers, this analysis argues, point in opposite directions, the propriety concern deserves an institutional answer, but the stay on the compensation and strictures was close to inevitable on settled precedent.
The Lawyers Association for Constitution has sought the recall of two Supreme Court orders passed on September 23 by benches comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the reference of the challenge to the 2023 Election Commissioners appointment law to a Constitution Bench, and the interim relief to Noida DM Medha Roopam, citing reports that the judge’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission. The Association says it raises concerns of perception, not of actual bias.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused himself from hearing Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea in the Rs 200-crore money laundering case involving Sukesh Chandrashekhar, citing a conflict of interest arising from a connected matter. The Supreme Court directed that the case be listed on June 25 before a different Bench.
Gauhati: Kamal Nayan Choudhury, President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA), on Wednesday requested that Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair step away from hearing a contempt of court case. This request was made during the proceedings before a Bench consisting of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Nair.
