‘Justice Sharma Did Not Disclose Son’s ECI Link During Appointment Case Hearing’: Petitioner Tells Supreme Court

New Delhi, October 7, 2026: An application has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the recall of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s opinion in the case challenging the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, alleging that the judge did not disclose his son’s professional association with the Election Commission of India (ECI) while hearing the matter.

The application, filed by Naman Sherstra, claims Justice Sharma’s son was serving as standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It states that the association was not disclosed to the parties during any of the five hearings in the case. The applicants maintain that had they known about the professional link, they would have sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, Live Law reports.

Disclosure At Heart Of Plea

“The Petitioners state on record that 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,” the application states.

According to the applicants, the absence of disclosure deprived them of an opportunity to seek the judge’s recusal before the split verdict was delivered.

Split Verdict Under Spotlight

On September 23, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

When Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the recall application before the Supreme Court on October 7, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said he would examine it and take a call.

The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Pawan Reley, seeks the recall of the common order referring the matter to a five-judge bench as well as Justice Sharma’s opinion. It specifically states that the applicants are not seeking the recall of Justice Datta’s opinion.

No Bias Alleged Against Judge

Significantly, the applicants have stressed that their grievance is confined to the alleged non-disclosure. They say they are not imputing bias, motive or lack of good faith to Justice Sharma.

“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?” the application states.

The plea therefore raises a question of judicial disclosure rather than making an allegation of actual bias. Its argument is that the parties should have been informed of the professional association so they could decide whether to seek recusal.

Applicants Cite Public Records

The applicants state that they learnt about Justice Sharma’s son’s association with the ECI after the split verdict through a LiveLaw report. They subsequently carried out an independent verification and, according to the application, confirmed that Justice Sharma’s son was standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The application states that the judge’s son was engaged as ECI standing counsel on July 10, 2024. The applicants also found Madhya Pradesh High Court orders showing that he had appeared for the poll body.

According to the plea, public records show that Justice Sharma’s son has regularly appeared for the ECI before the High Court. Copies of two orders, dated July 29, 2026, and September 1, 2026, have been annexed to the application in support of the assertion.

‘Actual Bias Need Not Be Proved’

The applicants argue that proof of actual bias or prejudice is not necessary. They contend that the issue should instead be examined from the perspective of a fair-minded and informed person aware of all the relevant facts.

The application also relies on the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, stating that judges are required to ensure that justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to be done. It refers to provisions dealing with immediate family members at the Bar and judges hearing matters in which a family member, close relation or friend is concerned.

Also Watch:

Seen in that context, the application places the emphasis on transparency and disclosure in judicial proceedings, while expressly stopping short of alleging that Justice Sharma was actually biased.

The applicants have sought the recall of Justice Sharma’s opinion and the listing of the Election Commissioners’ appointment case before a two-judge bench.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/