The petition filed by Dr Jaya Thakur states that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who agreed with the Central government's demand to refer the matter to a larger bench, should not have heard the matter on account of a direct conflict of interest.
She has argued that there was a "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety" since Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.
Justice Dipankar Datta had rejected the Centre's request for a reference to a larger bench.
The petition filed by Dr Jaya Thakur states that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who agreed with the Central government's demand to refer the matter to a larger bench, should not have heard the matter on account of a direct conflict of interest.
She has argued that there was a "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety" since Justice Sharma's son, Siddharth Sharma, is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since July 2024.
Justice Dipankar Datta had rejected the Centre's request for a reference to a larger bench.
