Supreme Court to Decide on CEC Law Recall Plea

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on Wednesday that the Supreme Court will examine and soon decide whether to list an application seeking recall of its order referring the challenge to the 2023 law governing appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a Constitution bench.

The plea was mentioned for urgent hearing by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Vishal Sinha. “We will examine and take a call,” CJI Surya Kant said.

The application was filed by Naman Sherstra, one of the petitioners challenging the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Why the September 23 Order Is Being Challenged

The application seeks recall of an order passed by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. The bench had referred the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration of a five-judge Constitution bench after delivering a split verdict on whether such a reference was necessary.

Justice Datta had held that a Constitution bench was not required because the challenge could be examined using principles already established by earlier Supreme Court judgments.

Justice Sharma disagreed. He held that the petitions raised substantial questions concerning constitutional interpretation and, under Article 145(3), such questions should be heard by at least five judges.

The two judges consequently passed a common order placing the issue before the CJI.

The new application, however, challenges only Justice Sharma’s order and the common referral order. It does not seek recall of Justice Datta’s separate opinion.

Recusal Question at Centre of Plea

The petitioners have raised a separate issue concerning Justice Sharma. They claim his son appears for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and argue that this connection should have been disclosed during the hearings.

According to the application, the petitions were heard by the Datta-Sharma bench on five occasions: May 6, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30. Orders were reserved on July 30 over whether the case should be sent to a Constitution bench.

The plea says Justice Sharma did not disclose the alleged connection or seek recusal during any of those hearings.

The petitioners said they learned about the connection through news reports that emerged two days after the September 23 order. They argue that had the information been known earlier, they could have sought Justice Sharma’s recusal before the order was delivered.

The application frames the issue around whether the circumstances could objectively create a reasonable apprehension about impartiality.

Sankaranarayanan also told the CJI that the matter had been mentioned before Justice Datta on October 1, but the judge declined to entertain the request and directed the lawyers to approach the Chief Justice.

The court also asked whether another proceeding had been filed. The lawyer referred to a curative petition filed by another petitioner, saying that matter could be considered independently.

Key Takeaways

• CJI Surya Kant said the Supreme Court will examine the request and decide whether to list it.
• The plea seeks recall of the September 23 referral order concerning the 2023 CEC appointment law.
• Petitioners have raised a recusal issue involving Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
• The original bench delivered a split verdict on whether the challenge required a five-judge Constitution bench.

What Happens Next

The immediate question is whether the Supreme Court will list the recall application and examine the petitioners’ objection to the referral process.

That decision could determine how the challenge to the 2023 election commissioners’ appointment law proceeds. The underlying case remains significant because the law changed the composition of the panel responsible for selecting the CEC and Election Commissioners.

For now, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the recall request. The next listing will determine whether the petitioners get an opportunity to press their objections before the court.

What do you think about the petitioners’ recusal argument and the Supreme Court’s next step?

Disclaimer: This report is based on the information and legal proceedings described in the supplied material and should not be treated as legal advice.