{
  "id": 11047907,
  "title": "Citing SC judge son, curative plea against verdict on CEC & ECs appointment law",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/30/citing-sc-judge-son-curative-plea-against-verdict-on-cec-ecs",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-30T22:25:36.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Times of India",
    "slug": "times-of-india",
    "url": "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/citing-sc-judge-son-curative-plea-against-verdict-on-cec-ecs-appointment-law/articleshow/134605318.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "A curative plea has been filed in the Supreme Court against a verdict pertaining to the law governing the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs). The petition, filed by Jaya Thakur, cites Justice Satish Chandra Sharma's reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety due to his son, Siddharth Sharma, serving as counsel for the EC before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. This appearance of bias raises concerns about the impartiality of Justice Sharma's participation in the judgment.\n\nThe two-judge bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sharma, delivered a split verdict on whether the validity of the law should be referred to a constitution bench. However, they agreed to transfer the case to a larger bench to expedite the resolution of the issue. The primary challenge lies in the contention that the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, grants the executive excessive power in the appointment process, with the panel comprising the Prime Minister, a cabinet minister, and the Leader of the Opposition providing the government a 2:1 majority.\n\nJustice Dipankar Datta highlighted the law's flaws and opined that its validity could be examined by a division bench. On the other hand, Justice Sharma ruled that the matter should be decided by a constitution bench. The petition argues that even the mere apprehension of bias is sufficient to invalidate the order, contending that the judgment dated September 23 is tainted by Justice Sharma's presence on the bench.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}