The son of a retiring Supreme Court judge holds multiple government counsel panels, including those for the Income Tax Department, GST, Customs, Excise, and Madhya Pradesh government. This has raised questions about his ability to deliver impartial judgement in politically sensitive cases.
Supreme Court Judge Satish Chandra Sharma, who is due to retire in a few months, has been criticized for hearing petitions regarding the constitutionality of a 2023 law that governs the appointment of members of the Election Commission. His son holds four significant government counsel panels, including those for the Income Tax Department, GST, Customs, and Excise, and a Madhya Pradesh government lawyer panel.
On Wednesday, Justice Sharma disagreed with Justice Dipankar Datta, who was part of the bench hearing six petitions against the Act, when the latter held that the law ‘does not appear to ensure an independent selection process’. The composition of the selection committee, which includes the prime minister, a Union Cabinet minister, and the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, means that the government enjoys a 2:1 majority over the leader of the Opposition if there is a difference of opinion.
Justice Sharma also headed a bench that overturned an Allahabad High Court order directing Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation from her salary to Akriti Chaudhary, a Delhi University graduate who was detained under the National Security Act after a workers’ protest in Noida. The matter was listed before Sharma’s bench despite not being assigned to handle preventive detention cases according to the Supreme Court roster.
According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s website , Sharma’s son is the standing counsel for the Election Commission since 2024. He is also the standing counsel for the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Department since 2023.
Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra alleged that it was due to Sharma’s son being the poll panel’s counsel that he had disagreed with Datta on the matter of the 2023 Act. ‘Judiciary is protector – cannot be predator.’
Source:
Scroll.in
