Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Curative Petition Seeks Recall of Split Verdict on Election Commission Appointment Law
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Petition to Recall September 23 Split Verdict
On September 29 2026, petitioner Dr Jaya Thakur filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court requesting that the Court set aside its September 23 split verdict on the constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Background & Context: 2023 Appointment Act and Prior Litigation
The 2023 Act changed the three-member selection panel for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister and giving the Union government a dominant role. Petitioners argued this undermines the Election Commission’s independence under Article 324. A two-judge bench—Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma—issued divergent opinions on September 23: Justice Datta rejected a referral to a larger bench, while Justice Sharma favored it. Both directed the matter to the Chief Justice of India for bench allocation.
Data & Statistics: Key Provisions and Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 10 2024 | Siddharth Sharma empanelled as standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (cited in the curative petition). |
| September 23 | Split verdict delivered by Justices Datta and Sharma on the referral question. |
| September 25 | Media report (LiveLaw) disclosed Sharma’s role, prompting verification on the High Court website. |
| September 29 2026 | Curative petition filed by Dr Jaya Thakur. |
| May 14 | Attorney General raised an Article 145(3) objection during oral arguments (noted in the petition). |
Sections 7 and 8 of the Act specify that the selection panel consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Official Statements & Responses
- The petition seeks exemption from filing a prior review petition, arguing that a review before the same bench would serve “no useful purpose,” citing Order XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- The Centre’s May 2026 counter-affidavit contained no objection to a two-judge bench, while the Attorney General’s Article 145(3) objection was raised for the first time on May 14.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The petition bypasses the conventional review stage, a procedural deviation noted but not yet addressed by the Court.
- No judicial determination on the alleged bias has been issued; the Supreme Court’s response to the curative petition remains pending.
- While the petition highlights Siddharth Sharma’s standing-counsel role since July 2024, independent verification of any direct interaction with the matters before Justice Sharma is lacking.
What’s Next
The curative petition asks the Chief Justice of India to consider constituting a Constitution Bench to rehear the challenges to the 2023 appointment Act. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to recall the September 23 order and appoint a larger bench will determine the next procedural step in the litigation.