Petitioner challenging CEC, ECI appointments law moves curative plea in Supreme Court

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The lead petitioner who challenged the Election Commissioners’ appointment law has filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 29, 2026) to recall the September 23 split verdict in the case, citing “reasonable apprehension of bias” while alleging that the son of one of the presiding judges, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, serves as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India.

The judgment saw Justice Dipankar Datta, the lead judge on the Division Bench, decline a reference of the case to a five-judge Constitution Bench. Justice Sharma, on the other hand, held that the petitions ought to be heard by a Constitution Bench. Ultimately, the Bench passed an order sending the case back to the Chief Justice of India to consider forming a five-judge Bench to hear the case.

The split verdict has stalled the immediate hearing and possible judgment on the merits of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The Act had replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister on the three-member selection panel, giving the government a dominant role in the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.

“The curative petition is filed on the ground of ‘reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety’ on the part of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma to hear the writ petition as his Lordship’s son Mr. Siddharth Sharma is standing counsel of Election Commission of India before Madhya Pradesh High Court and the present set of proceedings directly and substantially challenged the appointment process of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner,” the curative petition filed by petitioner Jaya Thakur, represented by advocate Varun Thakur, submitted.

The petitioner said she came to know of the alleged details about the judge’s son after the judgment and from media reports, following which she had verified it herself from the High Court’s website.

The curative plea said the September 23 judgment was “vitiated due to presence of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on the Bench”.

Usually, review petitions precede curative pleas in the Supreme Court. However, the petitioner in this case has bypassed the review stage to straightaway file a curative petition.

In her petition, Ms. Thakur sought exemption from filing a review petition. She explained that, as per Order XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, “an application for review shall as far as practicable be circulated to the same Judge or Bench of Judges that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed”.

“No useful purpose would be served for filing the review petition, as the same would be listed before a Bench of which Justice Satish Chandra Sharma would be a member, and the allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias is made against the Judge,” the petition said.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.