Supreme Court Refuses Plea on Election Commissioner Law, Directs Petitioner to Chief Justice

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition concerning the law on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other election commissioners. Petitioner Naman Shrestha had filed the plea asking the court to recall an order that referred a related case to a constitution bench. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the petition before Justice Dipankar Datta. Justice Datta told the lawyer to approach Chief Justice Surya Kant because the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and a curative petition has also been filed in the matter. Sankaranarayanan argued that the petition needs listing because the request to recall the order is based on the claim that one of the judges on the bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, should have recused himself. The plea states that Justice Sharma's son works as an election commission advocate in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Shrestha is one of the petitioners challenging the validity of the CEC and EC Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office Act, 2023. On September 23, a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had delivered a split verdict on the matter. Justice Datta held that sending the case to a larger bench was not necessary because the challenge can be decided based on principles settled in earlier judgments. Justice Sharma held a different view, stating that the case raises important questions about the interpretation of the Constitution and should be heard by a bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3). Both judges passed a joint order placing the case before the Chief Justice to decide on sending the petitions to a constitution bench. The petition noted that the bench heard the matter five times, but Justice Sharma did not disclose this family link or recuse himself during those hearings. The fact about Justice Sharma's son working as an election commission lawyer came to light through a news report two days after the September 23 order.

Context

This case deals with the laws governing how top election officials are chosen in the country and how the Supreme Court handles petitions that raise constitutional questions. When judges on a bench disagree on a matter, the case is typically referred to the Chief Justice of India to decide the next steps. Supreme Court procedures allow for matters involving major constitutional interpretations to be reviewed by larger benches.