Serious questions concerning judicial propriety have arisen after newly surfaced information revealed that the son of Supreme Court Justice Satish Chandra Sharma serves as the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The professional connection compounds existing concerns surrounding judicial assignments, a challenge to the law governing election commissioner appointments, and a separate petition involving the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Supreme Court Case on Election Commissioner Appointments and the Constitution Bench Reference
The disclosure assumes significance because Justice Satish Chandra Sharma sat on a two-judge bench that heard petitions challenging the 2023 law governing the appointment process for Chief Election Commissioners and the Election Commissioners. On September 23, Justice Sharma expressed the view that the matter must be heard by a Constitution Bench, leading to the case being referred there despite a contrary opinion from Justice Dipankar Datta. This reference delays the hearing of a matter that is integrally connected to the survival of Indian democracy. In his opinion, Justice Sharma prima facie approved the present process to select the CEC and the ECs, stating that the Selection Committee cannot be held to be biased merely because it is executive-heavy.
Noida District Magistrate Petition and Roster Assignment Questions
Coincidentally, on the exact same day, another bench led by Justice Sharma heard a petition filed by Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam. Roopam challenged an Allahabad High Court order that criticized her for ordering the detention of a student under the National Security Act in connection with an April labour protest. The High Court had awarded Rs 5 Lakh in compensation to the student, ordering it to be recovered from Roopam’s salary. The bench presided over by Justice Sharma provided interim relief to Roopam by pausing both the recovery order and the High Court’s strictures against her. These circumstances acquire a curious dimension because Medha Roopam is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The listing before Justice Sharma generated strong questions because his bench did not hold the regular roster for that subject matter, and another bench led by Justice Nagarathna was already hearing connected matters. This special assignment contrary to the prevailing roster created doubts in the minds of several persons.
Professional Connections and Potential Conflict of Interest Concerns
According to the website of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Sharma’s son, who enrolled in 2017, serves as the standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and the Election Commission of India. His younger son, enrolled in 2020, works as the standing counsel for the MP Public Service Commission. It remains unclear if Justice Sharma disclosed this professional connection to the parties involved in the ECI law case and the Medha Roopam case. Observers question whether a judge can be expected to decide against an entity when a child’s professional growth depends on that same entity, highlighting the principle that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done. A dispassionate observer is entitled to question whether adjudication in these matters can be entirely free from a potential conflict of interest.
Future Scenarios and Expected Next Steps
Keep reading