Justice Sharma had led the Division Bench that passed an interim order on September 23 in the appeal filed by Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam, the daughter of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. File.
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement
A group of advocates issued a public statement on Friday (September 25, 2026) seeking the recall of a recent Supreme Courtorder involving Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam and requesting that petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner’s appointment law be heard afresh.
The statement, issued by the Lawyers Association for Constitution and circulated online by Supreme Court advocate Subhash Chandran K.R., urges that both matters be heard by a top court Bench that does not include Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Justice Sharma had led the Division Bench that passed an interim order on September 23 in the appeal filed by Ms. Roopam, the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
The same day saw Justice Sharma disagree with Justice Dipankar Datta on whether the challenge against the 2023 CEC/EC law should be referred to a five-judge Bench. Justice Datta had decided against the reference to a Constitution Bench, opting to straightaway hear the merits of the case against the 2023 law, while Justice Sharma had favoured a reference.
Due to the split decision, the matter is now pending before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitution Bench, causing further delay in a final ruling.
The lawyers’ group has cited two primary concerns gleaned from public reports. One, on the “improper listing” of Ms. Roopam’s case before Justice Sharma’s Bench, which did not hold the roster for petitions linked to habeas corpus pleas. The association further pointed to “public reports” stating that the “son of Justice Sharma is empanelled as a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh”.
“We do not know whether this was brought to the notice of the parties in either matter… We wish to state that we are not on the merits of the case but on how these circumstances may appear to the public. The Supreme Court has long held that the test in such situations is not whether a judge was in fact influenced. The test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer might reasonably apprehend a possibility of bias,” the statement said.
The lawyers’ association have also urged the top court to consider a transparent protocol on disclosure and recusal when “close relatives of a judge are engaged as counsel by a party or an interested institution”.
Published – September 25, 2026 11:09 pm IST
