A fresh application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking recall of the September 23, 2026 opinion of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and the common order passed by the Bench in the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, citing a subsequent disclosure regarding the professional engagement of Justice Sharma’s son with the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The application has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Pawan Reley. The petitioners seek recall of Justice Sharma’s opinion dated September 23 as well as the common order passed by Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma following their divergent views on whether the challenge to the 2023 Act should be considered by a Constitution Bench. However, the application does not seek recall of Justice Datta’s separate opinion.

The application states that the issue came to light after the September 23 proceedings, when a September 25 report highlighted that Siddharth Sharma, son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, is standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petitioners state that they subsequently verified the engagement from the official Madhya Pradesh High Court standing counsel records, which show his engagement with the ECI from July 10, 2024.

The petitioners claim that the engagement was not disclosed to them during the five hearings before the Bench on May 6, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30, 2026. It mentioned that had the engagement been disclosed, the petitioners would have sought Justice Sharma’s recusal.

The petitioners rely on the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and cite decisions including Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 425, Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 611, Justice P.D. Dinakaran v. Hon’ble Judges Inquiry Committee & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 380 and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 770 in support of their submissions concerning reasonable apprehension and appearance of bias.

The petitioners have sought, among other reliefs, recall or suitable modification of the September 23 common order, insofar as it directed the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of a Constitution Bench, and fresh consideration of the reference issue by an appropriate Bench.

The development comes after the September 23 split decision of Justices Datta and Sharma on the question of reference of the challenge to the 2023 Act to a larger Bench. The common order directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of the constitution of a Constitution Bench.

Also Read Supreme Court Split Verdict On ECI Appointment Law; Matter To Go Before Larger Bench