Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Split opinion; challenge to 2023 Act sent to CJI for a Constitution Bench

Justice Datta rejected the Centre's plea for a larger bench, holding the principles were settled in Anoop Baranwal; Justice Sharma held that the validity of Sections 6, 7 and 8 raises a substantial question of constitutional interpretation. In a joint order both directed the papers be placed before the Chief Justice to consider constituting a Constitution Bench, and asked him to consider a permanent five-judge bench, citing years-long delays in references.

SCO's report attributes 'largely ornamental' to the Cabinet Minister; in the judgment (para 72) Justice Datta says the Leader of Opposition's presence becomes 'largely ornamental'. The merits remain undecided as of 25 September 2026.

• TIER 1 · PRIMARYDr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2024 and connected matters, 2026 INSC 1040: opinions of Datta J and Sharma J and common orderSupreme Court of India (PDF hosted by Supreme Court Observer)2026-09-23“we direct that the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice”
• TIER 2 · RESEARCH/FILINGSC delivers split verdict, sends ECI appointments law challenge to larger benchSupreme Court Observer2026-09-23