A lawyers’ association and several prominent individuals have raised concerns over reports that the son of Supreme Court Justice Satish Chandra Sharma who this week heard petitions challenging the 2023 law on top appointments to the Election Commission of India (ECI) is listed as counsel for the poll panel in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

They pointed out that Justice Sharma also presided over Gautam Buddha Nagar district magistrate Medha Roopam’s appeal against an Allahabad High Court ruling that annulled her detention order for a student activist in the Noida violence case and criticised her actions.

Roopam is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

A bench led by Justice Sharma had provided her with partial relief in the case.

Cockroach Janta Party co-convenor Saurav Das initially reported on Thursday that Justice Sharma’s son occupies several official positions on panels at the high court.

“We are unsure whether this issue was brought to the attention of the parties in either case,” the Lawyers’ Association for Constitution (LAFC) stated on Friday (September 25), referring to reports that Justice Sharma’s son, Siddharth Sharma, is listed as standing counsel for the Election Commission in the Madhya Pradesh high court.

In its statement, the LAFC added that it was troubled by “how these circumstances may be perceived by the public.”

It noted, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that the relevant test in such situations is not whether a judge was actually influenced, but whether a fair-minded and informed observer could reasonably suspect a possibility of bias.”

Manu Sebastian, managing editor at Live Law, similarly stated that Das’s assertion raises “serious questions concerning judicial propriety.”

“Can a judge be expected to rule against an organisation when his child’s professional advancement relies on that very organisation?” Sebastian asked.

He contended that the crucial issue here is not simply whether Justice Sharma was actually influenced by his son’s reported inclusion on the panel.

The concern, he said, is also one of perception, recalling the principle that ‘justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.’

He further maintained that Justice Sharma’s view that challenges to the law governing Election Commission appointments should be sent to a constitution bench has resulted in “a further postponement of the hearing in this case, which is fundamentally tied to the preservation of Indian democracy.”

Justice Dipankar Datta, the second judge on the bench hearing the case, opposed sending the matter to a larger bench.

However, the judges submitted it to the chief justice to constitute a constitution bench to examine the challenges.

Critics of the law introduced by the Modi government argue that it skews the appointment process for election commissioners in favour of the executive.

The LAFC asked that the Supreme Court’s decision granting partial relief to Roopam be revoked and the matter “be listed before the bench that holds the regular roster”.

“We also respectfully request that the question of referring the challenge to the 2023 Act to a Constitution Bench be heard afresh by a bench of which Justice Sharma is not a member,” the group said.

It further recommended that the apex court "adopt a transparent protocol for disclosure and recusal in situations where close relatives of a judge are retained as counsel by a party or an interested institution."

Justice Sharma’s ruling in the Roopam case delivered along with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, in which they halted the Allahabad High Court’s order to award student activist Akriti Chaudhary Rs 5 lakh from the salaries of officials including Roopam—has sparked controversy due to its unusual context.

Earlier this week, LiveLaw reported that Roopam’s challenge to the high court order was listed before Justice Sharma’s bench, despite this bench not being routinely assigned preventive detention or habeas corpus matters under the Supreme Court’s roster.

The case drew additional controversy after the bench chose to mute the audio during the livestream of the proceedings.