India’s Supreme Court Bias Challenge Lands as Courts Confront AI, Accountability and Trust

The Supreme Court of India is being asked to recall its split verdict on the 2023 law governing the appointment of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners, with a curative petition arguing that one judge may have had a conflict of interest. At the same time, a separate global conversation about court integrity is intensifying, as senior judges in the UK weigh how far artificial intelligence should be allowed into judicial work.

What the curative petition is asking the court to do

The petition, filed by Jaya Thakur, seeks to reopen the court’s Sept. 23 split decision on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The challenge goes to the heart of how election commissioners are chosen and whether the law’s exclusion of the Chief Justice of India from the appointment panel is valid.

Mint reported that the plea was brought under Article 32, Article 142 and the Supreme Court Rules framework for curative petitions. That procedural route is extraordinary: in India, a curative petition is a narrow post-judgment remedy meant for rare cases where a court is asked to correct a grave miscarriage of justice after normal remedies have been exhausted.

According to Mint, the plea argues that review would not be an adequate next step because it would go back to the same bench. The filing therefore asks the court to set aside the earlier order and treat the matter as one requiring a fresh look.

Why the petition alleges bias

The core of the new filing is an allegation that there is at least a reasonable likelihood of bias because of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s family connection to the Election Commission. Mint reported that the petition cites media claims that Justice Sharma’s son is standing counsel for the Election Commission in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The petition further alleges nondisclosure and conflict of interest. It says, according to Mint, that Justice Sharma’s son has been on the EC legal panel since July 10, 2024. On that basis, the plea invokes the legal standard that asks whether there is a real danger of bias, not whether bias is proven in fact.

One sentence from the petition, as quoted by Mint, captures the theory it is advancing:

“a judge cannot decide a case”

The filing uses that proposition to argue that even the appearance of a conflict can undermine public confidence in the result.

Mint said the petition also asks the court to permit the curative plea without first forcing a review petition, contending that the usual route would be inadequate because the same bench would hear it. That procedural request matters because curative petitions are already exceptional; asking for exemption from prior review raises the stakes further.

How did the Supreme Court get here?

The Sept. 23 verdict did not settle the underlying constitutional dispute. Instead, it left the matter divided on the question of whether the challenge to the 2023 appointment law should move to a larger constitution bench. Mint reported that the bench asked the Chief Justice of India to consider constituting an appropriate-strength bench, and even floated the idea of a permanent five-judge constitution bench.

That split matters because the law reshaped the selection process for the country’s top election officials. The petition at issue challenges the validity of a framework that removes the Chief Justice of India from the appointment panel, a move critics have argued weakens institutional independence. The current curative plea is therefore not just about one judge’s possible conflict; it is also about the durability of the mechanism used to appoint election commissioners.

Curative petitions are reserved for exceptional cases in Indian legal practice. They are designed to preserve confidence in the finality of judgments while leaving a narrow opening for correcting serious errors. That is why the current filing lands in a high-stakes zone: it is asking the Supreme Court to revisit not just an outcome, but the legitimacy of the process that produced it.

Why it matters

This is a procedural dispute, but it cuts to a much larger issue: trust in institutions. If the court reopens the matter, it would signal that allegations of conflict in a constitutional case are serious enough to justify extraordinary relief. If it declines, it will reinforce the very high bar that curative petitions already face.

The case also touches the Election Commission, one of the most important bodies in Indian democracy. Appointment rules for election commissioners are not a technical footnote; they shape perceptions of neutrality at the institution responsible for running national and state elections. Any cloud over how those officials are chosen can ripple into broader debates about electoral credibility.

For readers, the story also shows how courts are increasingly being judged not only on legal reasoning, but on public confidence in the people deciding the cases. The petition’s bias allegation is significant precisely because it does not need to prove actual partiality to be consequential; even the suggestion of a conflict can be enough to trigger a credibility crisis.

The timing matters too. The petition comes after the bench itself signaled that the issue may warrant a larger constitutional hearing. That leaves the Supreme Court with two separate but connected questions: whether the curative plea can get over the procedural threshold, and whether the underlying appointment law should be heard afresh by a larger bench.

What happens next?

The immediate question is whether the Supreme Court will entertain the curative plea at all. If it does, the court must decide whether the alleged connection involving Justice Sharma’s son is enough to justify recall of the Sept. 23 order.

If the court rejects the curative petition, the challenge to the appointment law may still turn on the bench-strength question raised earlier. Mint reported that the court had asked the Chief Justice of India to consider an appropriate-strength bench, including the possibility of a permanent five-judge constitution bench.

There are therefore three things to watch:

• whether the curative petition is listed and heard;
• whether the court treats the bias claim as sufficient for extraordinary intervention;
• and whether the broader challenge to the 2023 law is assigned to a larger bench.

The case may also shape how future litigants frame conflict-of-interest claims in constitutional matters. A successful curative petition would underline that disclosure and institutional distance are central to legitimacy. A refusal would reinforce the message that the curative route remains a last-resort remedy, not a second appeal.

Background: the appointment law at the center of the dispute

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 is the statute now under challenge. The petition seeks to invalidate or revisit its validity on the ground that the Chief Justice of India is excluded from the appointment panel.

That exclusion is the legal fulcrum of the broader controversy. The appointment of election commissioners is not merely administrative housekeeping; it affects who oversees the conduct of elections in India. Because the Election Commission is central to democratic governance, the method of appointing its top officials carries constitutional weight.

The Sept. 23 split verdict did not settle that issue cleanly. Instead, it left open the question of the proper bench for hearing the challenge, prompting the bench to ask the Chief Justice of India to consider the next procedural step. Mint’s reporting makes clear that the latest curative filing is built on that unresolved posture.

By the numbers

How courts are handling AI while worrying about fairness

Separate from the Indian dispute, a WIRED interview with Geoffrey Vos, the retiring Master of the Rolls in England and Wales, shows a different but related judicial concern: how courts can use new technology without compromising trust. Vos described a future in which AI may help reduce delay in ordinary civil disputes, while human judges remain essential for difficult or sensitive matters.

Vos told WIRED that he uses Microsoft Copilot every day to find documents and summarize text. But he also said judges in England are currently advised to limit AI use to administrative tasks. That caution reflects a broader effort by courts in the UK and India to manage lawyers’ use of generative AI in filings and evidence.

He also pointed to what he saw on a visit to a Shenzhen court, where civil disputes were being handled with heavy AI assistance. Vos suggested that simpler civil cases could eventually be adjudicated by AI, though he drew a line around more complex disputes where a human judge should remain in charge.

His view was blunt about what many litigants want.

“What most people desperately want in civil disputes is resolution.”

In Vos’s telling, the question is not whether machines can mimic legal language, but whether they can reliably deliver the result people need. He told WIRED:

“I don’t think it’s about reasoning; it’s about outcomes.”

AI in courtrooms: efficiency promise, integrity risk

Vos’s remarks are not directly connected to the Indian curative petition, but they illuminate a shared judicial problem: systems are under pressure to move faster without losing legitimacy. In England and Wales, he said, filings in county courts are rising by about 10% a year, and he linked part of that increase to people using chatbots to draft claims.

That speed comes with risk. Vos warned that some lawyers have cited AI-generated case law that did not exist, and he noted that one UK lawyer recently lost his license partly for AI misuse. The point is not that courts have rejected AI wholesale; it is that courts are being forced to police how it is used.

He said fake AI evidence should be treated like any other forged evidence and can lead to perjury charges. That stance places AI-generated material inside familiar rules of evidence and honesty rather than creating a special zone where the normal consequences do not apply.

Vos also drew a boundary around lawmaking itself, saying the question of how far AI should go is political as much as judicial. As he put it,

“It’s a question for society, politicians, and legislation to resolve.”

Why the Indian and UK stories belong in the same frame

The two stories are different in subject but similar in pressure point. In India, the issue is whether a constitutional case can be safely decided when a possible conflict of interest is alleged. In the UK, the issue is how to use AI to speed civil justice without undermining the fairness that gives court decisions force.

Both are about legitimacy. Courts do not survive on efficiency alone. They depend on the belief that the process is clean, the decision-maker is impartial, and the result can be trusted. That is why an alleged undisclosed family connection in one jurisdiction and AI-assisted case handling in another can sit in the same larger debate.

They also show the balancing act courts now face. If they move too cautiously, they risk delay and backlogs. If they move too quickly, they risk errors, bias claims or a loss of confidence. The pressure is coming from different directions, but the underlying challenge is the same.

Background and context: curative petitions and judicial trust

Curative petitions exist because even the strongest legal systems need a final safety valve. They are not meant to reopen every losing argument. Instead, they give the Supreme Court a narrow opportunity to address exceptional situations where the normal appellate process may not be enough.

That makes the current filing significant beyond the immediate case. If the court accepts the plea, it would be acknowledging that a possible conflict in a constitutional bench can justify extraordinary reconsideration. If it declines, it will be reaffirming that the curative route remains among the hardest procedural thresholds in Indian law.

The broader backdrop is a judiciary under public scrutiny on both sides of the issue. In India, litigants are watching for signs that bench composition and disclosure rules are being applied rigorously. In the UK, judges are deciding how much to trust AI tools that can speed work but also introduce hallucinations, shortcuts and evidentiary problems.

For both systems, the question is not merely what the law allows. It is what the public will accept as fair.

What to watch in the coming weeks

• Whether the Supreme Court lists the curative petition and on what timeline.
• Whether the court asks for responses on the conflict-of-interest allegation tied to Justice Sharma’s family connection.
• Whether the larger constitutional question over the 2023 appointment law is revived before a bench of greater strength.
• How English judges respond to continued pressure for AI-assisted civil case handling beyond administrative work.
• Whether courts in either country tighten guidance on AI-generated filings, evidence or legal citations.

The Indian filing is a reminder that court legitimacy can be challenged not only by the law itself, but by doubts about who sits in judgment. The UK remarks show a parallel concern from another angle: even when the goal is speed, courts still have to prove that efficiency has not become a substitute for justice.