Now Reading: SC judge’s son’s ECI link cited in recall plea over CEC law order
-
01
SC judge’s son’s ECI link cited in recall plea over CEC law order
The Story in Brief
The Supreme Court has been asked to recall its 23 September order that referred the challenge to the 2023 CEC appointment law to a Constitution bench, on the ground that one of the judges who heard the matter, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not disclose that his son represents the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Two separate pleas have been filed. Congress leader Jaya Thakur filed a curative petition on 29 September. On 30 September, petitioner Naman Sherstra filed a recall application. The Hindu reports that on 1 October, Sherstra's application was orally mentioned before Justice Dipankar Datta, who directed him to mention it before the Chief Justice of India. The next working day is 5 October. Sherstra's plea does not seek recall of Justice Datta's separate opinion.
Sherstra's application states that Justice Sharma heard the case on five occasions between May and July 2026 but never disclosed his son's engagement. Siddharth Sharma was appointed standing counsel for the ECI in the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 10 July 2024, after CEC Gyanesh Kumar took charge.
Update, 2 October 2026: The recall application by Naman Sherstra was orally mentioned before Justice Dipankar Datta on 1 October, who directed him to mention it before the Chief Justice of India. The next working day is 5 October. SCC Online and CNBC-TV18 also report on the split verdict and the petition against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, respectively, adding legal analysis and broader context on ECI functioning.
Indian Opinion Analysis
The coverage splits cleanly: Hindustan Times, The Hindu and SCC Online report the recall applications in straight news style, while Asian Age and CNBC-TV18 adopt a government-critical frame, foregrounding alleged irregularities in the ECI's SIR process and questioning CEC Kumar's conduct. The neutral reports treat the recall as a procedural development, noting that Sherstra's plea does not impute actual bias, whereas the critical pieces connect the judge's son's role to broader concerns about ECI independence. The differences between Sherstra's application and Thakur's curative petition are clearly reported across sources. The next date is 5 October, when Sherstra's plea can be mentioned before the CJI.
Coverage: 8 sources, 2 government-critical, 6 neutral
Sources (8): hindustantimes.com (neutral report), hindustantimes.com (2) (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report), hindustantimes.com (3) (neutral report), asianage.com (government critical), thehindu.com (neutral report), scconline.com (neutral report), cnbctv18.com (government critical)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 8 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
