ECI appointments case: J. Datta asks petitioner to mention before CJI his plea to recall split verdict
The petitioner seeks recall of Justice Sharma’s opinion ruling on referring the constitutional validity challenge of the CEC and ECI (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, to a five-judge bench
On October 1, 2026, petitioner Naman Shestra mentioned his application to Justice Dipankar Datta, the lead judge on the split verdict bench, questioning why Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not disclose his son's standing counsel role for the Election Commission of India (ECI) during court proceedings. Justice Datta requested the petitioner to bring this plea to the Chief Justice of India's attention, as the Chief Justice was unavailable on Friday, October 2, 2026, with the next hearing scheduled for October 5.
The application, filed by Shestra represented by Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Pawan Reley, challenges the constitutional validity of the Election Commissioners appointments law, which led to the split verdict on September 23. Justice Datta had previously declined a reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench but took exception to Justice Sharma's separate opinion supporting the reference.
The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister in the selection panel, allegedly undermining the Opposition's role and giving the Executive veto power over Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner appointments, reducing transparency and free and fair elections.
Written by urgent.news from The Hindu's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
