Two litigants—Congress MP Jaya Thakur and Naman Sherstra—filed recall petitions, arguing that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son, Siddharth, serves as standing counsel for the Election Commission before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The original September 23 ruling split: Justice Dipankar Datta held that a larger bench was unnecessary, while Sharma insisted the case merited a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). The bench subsequently directed that the papers be forwarded to the CJI for consideration of a Constitution Bench.
Chief Justice Surya Kant told the petitioners that the court would review the application and then decide, while Justice Datta reiterated that all such petitions would be handled by the CJI as the "master of roster"—a move that underscores the administrative weight of the matter.
A hearing on the recall application is set for the first week of November, after which the court will determine whether Sharma must recuse himself and whether the bench should be reconstituted, potentially reshaping the trajectory of the contested 2023 CEC law.