New Delhi, Oct. 2 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain an application seeking recall of the order passed by the Supreme Court on referring to a Constitution bench the challenge to the law governing the appointment of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners, asking the petitioner to approach the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The application filed by Naman Sherstra, one of the petitioners who has challenged the validity of the CEC & ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, was mentioned before justice Dipankar Datta by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan assisted by advocate Vishal Sinha. Justice Datta told Sankaranarayanan to approach the CJI Surya Kant as he is the "master of roster" and there is also a curative petition that has been filed in this matter. The judge said, "All applications and petitions will be decided by the master of the roster. We will not entertain these matters piecemeal. You approach the CJI." Sankaranarayanan said that the application needs to be listed as the recall is sought on the ground that one of the judges who heard the matter - justice Satish Chandra Sharma --ought to have recused as his son appears for the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh high court. On September 23, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma gave a split verdict on whether the 2023 law should be referred to a Constitution bench. While justice Datta was of the view that the need does not arise as the challenge to the Act can be considered based on the settled principles laid down by earlier judgments, justice Sharma held a different view. He said that substantial questions on interpretation of Constitution arise in the matter and under Article 145(3), the same should be heard by a bench of at least five judges of the Supreme Court. The two judges passed a common order placing the matter before CJI for referring the petitions to a Constitution bench. Sankaranarayanan told the court that recall is sought only on justice Sharma's order. He said that the application was filed as a curative will not be maintainable. The application categorically states that the matter was heard by the bench of justices Datta and Sharma on five occasions. On none of the occasions, justice Sharma disclosed this fact or sought recusal on this ground. Sherstra stated that the fact about justice Sharma's son being engaged as ECI counsel became known from news reports that surfaced two days after the September 23 order. It sought recall of the order stating, "The question is whether the established circumstances, viewed objectively, give rise to a reasonable apprehension concerning impartiality." However, the application does not seek recall of justice Datta's separate opinion."...