Curative plea filed against SC verdict on CEC and EC appointment law

A curative plea has been filed in the Supreme Court against a verdict on the appointment law for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, citing reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety concerns regarding Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The plea, filed by Jaya Thakur, alleges that Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, was standing counsel of the Election Commission before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, raising questions about the judge's impartiality in hearing the case.

The case involves the validity of provisions in the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which has been challenged on grounds that the law grants the executive overwhelming power in appointments. The selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Cabinet minister, and the Leader of Opposition gives the government a 2:1 majority. A two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sharma delivered a split verdict on whether the matter should be referred to a constitution bench, ultimately agreeing to refer it to a larger bench for early adjudication. Justice Datta highlighted flaws in the law, while Justice Sharma contended the issue required a constitution bench decision.

The curative petition argues that mere appearance of bias is sufficient to vitiate an order. The plea challenges the September 23 judgment, contending that Justice Sharma's presence on the bench compromised the proceedings.