Questions over judicial propriety have emerged around Supreme Court Justice Satish Chandra Sharma after reports that his son is serving as standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The issue has gained attention because Justice Sharma has recently dealt with matters connected to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, including a case involving Kumar’s daughter, Medha Roopam, and a separate challenge to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the CEC and other Election Commissioners.
Medha Roopam case raises questions over listing
Roopam, the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar, had approached the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court order concerning the detention of Delhi University student Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act.
The matter was heard by a bench headed by Justice Sharma and Justice N K Singh. LiveLaw reported that the bench did not have the regular roster for preventive detention matters at the time, while connected proceedings were pending before another bench headed by Justice B V Nagarathna.
The Supreme Court initially stayed the Allahabad High Court order, including its observations against Roopam and the direction that Rs 5 lakh be recovered from her salary.
However, the Supreme Court later revised its order and clarified that the stay was limited to the High Court’s strictures against Roopam and the Rs 5 lakh compensation direction. The High Court’s decision quashing the student’s NSA detention was not stayed.
The Allahabad High Court had criticised Roopam over the detention of Chaudhary, who had been arrested in connection with a workers’ protest in Noida.
Justice Sharma’s son represents ECI
The propriety questions have intensified following reports that Justice Sharma’s son is empanelled as standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
According to LiveLaw, Justice Sharma’s son enrolled as an advocate in 2017 and also represents the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Department. The report also said that Justice Sharma’s younger son is standing counsel for the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.
The reported professional association does not by itself establish that Justice Sharma’s decisions were influenced by his son’s work. The issue being raised publicly is whether the circumstances could create a perception of a conflict of interest or affect public confidence in the appearance of judicial impartiality.
Election Commissioners appointment law also before Justice Sharma
Another matter adding to the scrutiny is the challenge to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the CEC and Election Commissioners.
Justice Sharma was part of the Supreme Court bench hearing the challenge along with Justice Dipankar Datta. On September 23, the two judges differed on whether the petitions should be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The matter was subsequently placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench.
The 2023 law changed the composition of the committee responsible for selecting the CEC and Election Commissioners, replacing the Chief Justice of India’s position with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Questions centre on perception of impartiality
The controversy has also drawn comments from CJP co-convenor Saurav Das, who questioned whether a judge could be perceived as completely impartial in cases involving the ECI when a close family member represents the poll panel.
Das also raised allegations about the manner in which the proceedings in Roopam’s case were conducted, including an interruption of the audio feed. That allegation has not been independently established.
At present, the reported circumstances do not establish that Justice Sharma acted improperly or that his decisions were influenced by his son’s professional association with the ECI.
The broader issue is one of judicial propriety and public perception: whether circumstances surrounding a case could create an appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly when the case involves an institution represented professionally by a close family member of the judge.
