Petitioner Challenges ECI Appointment Law Verdict in Supreme Court
Petitioner Jaya Thakur has filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court on September 29, 2026, seeking to recall the September 23 split verdict concerning the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act of 2023. The petition asserts a reasonable apprehension of bias, citing that the son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, one of the judges who presided over the division bench, serves as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
According to Kamaraj IAS Academy, in the 2015 NJAC recusal ruling, the Supreme Court established that where no direct pecuniary interest exists, the test is whether there is a real danger or reasonable suspicion of bias to a fair-minded observer. According to The Indian Express, in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the CEC is primus inter pares and that Election Commissioners hold equal institutional status and decision-making power.
According to PRS Legislative Research, from 1950 to 2023, election commissioners were appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, until the Supreme Court mandated a PM-CJI-LoP panel in the Anoop Baranwal ruling. According to The Hindu, in Anoop Baranwal (2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that treating the CEC as superior renders other Election Commissioners non-functional and subverts collegiate governance under Article 324.
The September 23 decision arose from challenges against the 2023 statute, which substituted the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the three-member selection panel, thereby altering the appointment architecture for election commissioners. During that hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta declined to refer the petitions to a five-judge Constitution Bench, whereas Justice Sharma held that the matters warranted a Constitution Bench reference. Ultimately, the division bench ordered the case file returned to the Chief Justice of India to consider constituting a five-judge bench.
Curative Petition and Conflict Allegations
The curative petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Varun Thakur and certified by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, maintains that Justice Sharma ought to have disclosed his family connection before the commencement of proceedings. According to the court filings, petitioner Jaya Thakur discovered the professional association from media reports following the split verdict and subsequently verified from the Madhya Pradesh High Court website that Siddharth Sharma has been empaneled as an ECI standing counsel since July 10, 2024.
According to Bar and Bench, for Supreme Court of India, The curative petition revealed that the Central government's May 2026 counter-affidavit contained no objection to a two-judge bench hearing the challenge, with the Attorney General raising the Article 145(3) Constitution Bench objection orally on May 14.
Invoking the guidelines established in the landmark Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution, the petitioner bypassed filing a standard review petition. The curative plea contends that filing a review petition would serve no useful purpose because it would necessarily be circulated to the same bench, including Justice Sharma, against whom the apprehension of bias is raised.
Parallel Challenge Targeting CEC Gyanesh Kumar and SIR Decisions
In a separate development before the Supreme Court on September 29, 2026, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list an early hearing next week for a petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh. Represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh alongside advocates Sudeep Chandra and Mudit Gupta, the petitioner seeks the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenges unilateral administrative decisions taken without collective deliberation.
The petition argues that Article 324 of the Constitution vests supervisory authority in the Election Commission as a multi-member body rather than in the Chief Election Commissioner individually. Invoking Section 18 of the 2023 Act, the plea maintains that commission business must be transacted unanimously or by majority vote, citing reported objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petition documents at least 14 recorded objections between October 2025 and August 2026 regarding administrative actions, including alterations to Form 6 requiring historical electoral roll disclosures, centralisation of database access via the ERONet portal, and the filing of approximately 16.10 million appeals before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals. The court has directed the preservation of all relevant physical and electronic records pending further proceedings.