Fresh questions of judicial propriety have emerged around Supreme Court Justice Satish Chandra Sharma after reports surfaced that his son is the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The development has assumed significance in the wake of two matters involving Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. One concerns a petition filed by Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam, Kumar’s daughter, while the other challenges the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
According to a LiveLaw report, Roopam’s petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order was listed before a bench headed by Justice Sharma despite the bench not having the regular roster for the subject. The connected matters were being heard by a bench led by Justice B V Nagarathna. Justice Sharma’s bench subsequently granted interim relief to Roopam, staying the High Court’s adverse remarks against her and its direction to recover Rs 5 lakh from her salary.
The Allahabad High Court had imposed the penalty after criticising Roopam for ordering the detention of a student under the National Security Act in connection with an April labour protest.
The circumstances have attracted further scrutiny following the disclosure that Justice Sharma’s son is empanelled as standing counsel for the ECI in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. LiveLaw reported that the son, who enrolled in 2017, also represents the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Department. Justice Sharma’s younger son is reportedly standing counsel for the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.
The issue of judicial propriety has also gained significance because Justice Sharma was part of the bench hearing challenges to the 2023 law on the appointment of election commissioners. On September 23, Justice Sharma took the view that the matter should be considered by a Constitution Bench, while Justice Dipankar Datta expressed a contrary view. The matter was consequently referred to a larger bench, potentially delaying its final adjudication.
CJP co-convenor Saurav Das, in a post on X, has questioned whether a judge can be perceived as completely impartial in cases involving the ECI when a close family member has a professional association with the poll panel. Das also alleged that the proceedings in Roopam’s case were unusually conducted, including an interruption of the audio feed, though this claim was not independently verified.
The concerns centre not on whether Justice Sharma’s decisions were actually influenced, but on whether the circumstances could create a perception of conflict of interest. The principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done remains central to public confidence in the judiciary.
