ECI appointments case: J. Datta asks petitioner to mention before CJI his plea to recall split verdict

A petitioner in a case challenging the Election Commissioners appointments law, which culminated in a split verdict on September 23, orally mentioned on Thursday (October 1, 2026) his application questioning why one of the judges on the Bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not reveal during multiple court proceedings that his son was a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The application was mentioned before Justice Dipankar Datta, who had been the lead judge on the bench that delivered the split verdict on September 23. Justice Datta asked the petitioner-applicant to mention his plea before the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice was not holding court on Friday (October 2, 2026). The next working day for the court is October 5.

The application was filed by Naman Shestra, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Pawan Reley. Mr. Shestra has sought a recall of the opinion given by Justice Sharma, who was the puisne judge on the Division Bench headed by Justice Datta, on September 23, regarding the question of referring the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, to a five-judge bench.

While Justice Datta, in his opinion, had declined the reference to a Constitution Bench, Justice Sharma took an opposing view in favour of the reference. Eventually, both judges on the Bench had passed a common order for the Chief Justice of India to allocate the case to a Constitution Bench.

Editorial | Selection and election: On the appointment of Election Commissioners

The application has objected to this common order but did not challenge, specifically, the separate opinion given by Justice Datta.