Justice Satish Chandra Sharma faces scrutiny over judicial propriety

Questions regarding judicial propriety have emerged following Supreme Court Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s involvement in cases related to the Election Commission of India. Concerns were raised after it was revealed that Justice Sharma’s son serves as standing counsel for the Election Commission in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

One such matter involved petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act, which governs the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. In this case, Justice Sharma sat on a bench that eventually referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. While his colleague, Justice Dipankar Datta, questioned whether the current appointment process ensures independence, Justice Sharma expressed the view that an executive majority on the selection committee does not inherently imply bias.

Additionally, controversy has surrounded a Supreme Court stay in the Medha Roopam case. This case involved a challenge to a National Security Act detention. Legal observers have noted a potential conflict of interest, as the petitioner in that matter is the daughter of the Chief Election Commissioner, while Justice Sharma’s son is counsel for the Commission. Analysts suggest that while the legal merits of the stay may align with precedent, the institutional question of propriety remains a subject of debate.