CJI agrees to examine plea to recall split verdict in election commissioners law case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, agreed to examine an application seeking recall of its 23 September split verdict in the challenge to the law on appointing election commissioners, The Hindu, Scroll.in and ThePrint reported. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the application orally before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who agreed to examine it and take a call on hearing it.

What the application says

The application was filed by Naman Sherstra, one of the petitioners challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. It says Siddharth Sharma, son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, was appointed standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 10 July 2024 and that the engagement continued, The Hindu reported. According to the application, this was not disclosed to the parties at the five hearings held on 5, 7, 14 and 27 May and 30 July.

The application frames its grievance as narrow. The Hindu reported that it does not impute “actual bias, motive or want of good faith” to Justice Sharma, and asks only whether he ought to have disclosed the engagement while the proceedings were on. ThePrint reported that Mr Sherstra says he learned of it only after the 23 September opinions. He seeks recall of the Bench’s common order and of Justice Sharma’s opinion, and a fresh consideration of the reference. It does not seek recall of Justice Dipankar Datta’s opinion. None of the reports reviewed carried a response from Justice Sharma or the Election Commission.

The 23 September verdict

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on whether the challenge should go to a five-judge Constitution Bench. Justice Datta declined the reference; Justice Sharma favoured it, The Hindu reported. Both then passed a common order sending the matter to the Chief Justice of India to allocate. Scroll.in reported that Justice Datta held the law “does not appear to ensure an independent selection process”, while Justice Sharma said a substantial question of law required a larger bench.

The 2023 Act provides for a selection committee of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. It replaced the arrangement set by the Supreme Court in the 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment, under which the Chief Justice of India sat on the panel.

How the application reached the Chief Justice

Mr Sankaranarayanan first mentioned the application before Justice Datta, who asked him to approach the Chief Justice because the case records had already been returned to the CJI, The Hindu reported. Another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, filed a curative petition on 29 September seeking recall of the split verdict, alleging a “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety”, the paper said.

What happens next

The reports reviewed gave no date for a hearing on the application, and no decision on it. The Chief Justice’s decision on whether and how to list it, and on allocating the main challenge, remains pending.