CJI agrees to take a call on hearing a plea to recall split verdict in CEC appointments law case

What has the Chief Justice of India agreed to consider in connection with the September 23 split verdict?

The Chief Justice agreed to examine whether the Supreme Court should hear an application seeking recall of its September 23 split verdict. The verdict concerned whether a challenge to the 2023 law governing Election Commissioner appointments should go to a Constitution Bench. The request matters because it raises questions about disclosure and judicial propriety.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan orally mentioned the application before Chief Justice Surya Kant. It was filed by Naman Sherstra. The application questions why Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not disclose that his son, Siddharth Sharma, was standing counsel for the Election Commission before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Chief Justice has agreed only to consider the request, not to recall the verdict immediately. Another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, has already filed a curative petition alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court must now decide whether the application can be heard and what procedural response is appropriate.

What is a split verdict, and what does it mean to ask the court to recall it?

A split verdict is a decision in which judges on a Bench reach different conclusions on an important issue. Here, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed about whether the challenge to the 2023 appointments law should be referred to a Constitution Bench. Their disagreement required a procedural solution.

Justice Datta opposed the reference, while Justice Sharma supported it. Despite their separate opinions, both judges issued a common order asking the Chief Justice to allocate the matter to a Constitution Bench. Sherstra’s application objects to that common order and seeks recall of Justice Sharma’s opinion. It does not specifically challenge Justice Datta’s opinion.

Recall is an exceptional procedural request. It asks the court to revisit or withdraw an order because of a serious procedural concern, such as non-disclosure or possible unfairness. It is not the same as simply disagreeing with the legal reasoning. The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the request should be heard.

How many judges issued the split verdict, and how did their views differ on referring the case to a Constitution Bench?

The September 23 split verdict came from a two-judge Division Bench. Justice Dipankar Datta was the lead judge, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was the puisne, or junior, judge. Their disagreement concerned the next legal step in a challenge to the Election Commissioners’ appointments law.

Justice Datta declined to refer the law’s constitutional validity to a five-judge Constitution Bench. He said the 2023 law appeared, at first view, to conflict with the earlier Anoop Baranwal judgment. Justice Sharma took the opposite position and favored a Constitution Bench reference. Their separate opinions therefore pointed in different directions.

The judges ultimately passed a common order asking the Chief Justice to allocate the case to a Constitution Bench. That common order followed their disagreement, but the application now challenges the way it was reached. Sherstra specifically seeks recall of Justice Sharma’s opinion and objects to the common order, while not specifically challenging Justice Datta’s separate opinion.

Why could the fact that Justice Sharma’s son represented the Election Commission be relevant to the case?

The family connection could be relevant because the case directly challenged the statutory framework governing the Election Commission and the appointment of its members. Justice Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma, was appointed the ECI’s standing counsel before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 10, 2024. The application says this engagement continued during the relevant period.

The concern is about disclosure, not an allegation of proven personal bias. Sherstra expressly did not accuse Justice Sharma of actual bias, motive, or bad faith. Instead, the application asks whether a judge should tell the parties about an immediate family member’s professional engagement with an institution whose composition and appointments are under challenge.

The application says the connection was not disclosed during five hearings. That omission, the applicant argues, could create a reasonable concern about propriety, even without proof that the judge was influenced. The Supreme Court must decide whether this issue justifies hearing a recall request and potentially revisiting the disputed opinion or order.

What procedural consequences could follow if the court recalls Justice Sharma’s opinion or the common order?

A recall could unsettle the procedural path created by the September 23 order. The two judges had issued a common order directing the Chief Justice to allocate the case to a Constitution Bench, even though their opinions differed. If that order is recalled, the referral and allocation process could require fresh consideration.

The application specifically seeks recall of Justice Sharma’s opinion and objects to the common order. If the court accepts that request, it might have to determine whether the reference remains valid, whether another Bench should examine the issue, or whether the matter should proceed under a different arrangement. The article does not state which outcome will occur.

The immediate consequence is therefore procedural, not a final ruling on the 2023 law. The Supreme Court first has to decide whether Sherstra’s application can be heard. Jaya Thakur’s separate curative petition may also add to the court’s consideration of the alleged disclosure and propriety concerns.

What did the Supreme Court’s earlier Anoop Baranwal judgment say about who should be on the panel that appoints Election Commissioners?

The earlier Anoop Baranwal Constitution Bench judgment included the Chief Justice of India on the panel selecting the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. The CJI was intended to serve as a neutral member in a process led by the Prime Minister. This arrangement was linked to the need for institutional balance.

The 2023 law changed that structure. It replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The selection panel therefore retained the Prime Minister and included a government-nominated minister, along with the Opposition Leader of the Lok Sabha. Justice Datta viewed this change as potentially inconsistent with Anoop Baranwal.

Justice Datta said the replacement gave the Executive veto power over appointments and reduced the Opposition Leader’s presence to an ornamental role. He also stressed that Election Commissioners’ appointment and functioning are integral to free and fair elections. The current proceedings examine whether the legal challenge deserves consideration by a Constitution Bench.

Why are disclosure of possible conflicts and judicial impartiality important to free and fair elections?

Disclosure and impartiality matter because courts must appear independent as well as act fairly. If a judge’s immediate family member has a professional connection to an institution involved in the dispute, parties may reasonably want to know. Disclosure gives them a chance to raise concerns while the case is still being heard.

Here, the application says Justice Sharma’s son was standing counsel for the ECI and that this was not disclosed during five hearings. The applicant does not allege actual bias or bad faith. Instead, he raises a narrower question about whether the undisclosed engagement created a reasonable apprehension of bias or a concern about judicial propriety.

The issue has wider importance because the case concerns the body responsible for conducting elections and the process for appointing its senior officials. Justice Datta called those appointments integral to free and fair elections. Confidence in transparent adjudication therefore supports confidence in the election system itself, even before the court decides the recall request.

Key Facts:

📌 Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to examine the recall application.

📌 The application concerns the September 23 split verdict.

📌 Justice Sharma’s son represented the Election Commission in Madhya Pradesh.

📌 A split verdict means judges on one Bench disagree.

📌 The two judges differed over Constitution Bench referral.

📌 Recall asks the court to revisit or withdraw a decision.

📌 The verdict involved Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma.