Justice A.K. Sikri, a member of the panel that ousted Alok Verma as CBI director, had drawn a lot of flak after ThePrint reported the job offer.
New Delhi: Senior Supreme Court judge A.K. Sikri has withdrawn his consent to be nominated by the Narendra Modi government as a president/member in the London-based Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT), ThePrint has learnt.
Also read: Justice Sikri, whose vote decided Alok Verma’s fate, gets Modi govt nod for plum posting
The move came hours after ThePrint reported about the government’s decision, taken last month, to nominate him to the post, which he would have taken up after his retirement as Supreme Court judge on 6 March.
Sources told ThePrint that Justice Sikri wrote to the Union government Sunday evening to inform them of his decision to withdraw his consent, which he had given last month.
News that Sikri had accepted the government’s offer had kicked up a controversy since it was his vote that proved decisive in the ouster of CBI director Alok Verma on corruption allegations.
However, sources close to him claimed that his consent earlier had “no connection” to his role as member of the three-member high-level committee [HLC] headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and also including Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, appointed by the Supreme Court this week to decide on Verma’s future in the CBI.
Though Verma was reinstated by the Supreme Court, the committee, a day later, sacked him with a 2:1 vote, with Kharge voicing the dissent note. Kharge and PM Modi had diametrically opposite views on Verma’s future in the CBI, which made Sikri’s the deciding vote.
Denying any connection between the two events, the sources close to Sikri said he had “became the Chief Justice of India’s nominee [to the committee] only this week”.
Sources also claimed that he had not heard anything about the post “to date”.
The CSAT is the final arbiter of disputes between its 53 member-countries.
The HLC, in a decision that has attracted flak from experts, including former judges, had decided to remove Verma from his post and appoint him as Director-General, Fire Services, Delhi, for the remainder of his tenure.
However, Verma wrote to the Department of Personnel and Training on 11 January, saying that he “may be deemed as superannuated” with immediate effect.
It is duty of every journalist to present all facts in an honest manner so that readers can make their opinion based on full knowledge of the matter.
As an independent reader, what I concluded from The Print’s report that justice sikri removed verma so that he can get plum posting after retirement.
Whereas, after doing full research I found that justice sikri had given its consent last month itself. Whereas he was appointed member of the committee by CJI in last week. So, how can an accusation be made against him.
The print should be ashamed of itself that because of their foolhardy steps, justice sikri taken back his consent.
And for your information, he was the one who reduced time to prove majority in karnataka assembly to 2 days from 15 days for BJP.
And despite that he was approached by central govt. for the post suggests that he was capable of holding that post and that central govt does not work with grudges.
So, just introspect because people are becoming aware about their surroundings and can easily catch your lies .
CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA SHOULD PUNISH THE PRINT TODAY IN COURT AND PUT BEHIND BAR THE EDITOR AND REPORTER WHO PUBLISHES BIASED AND WITHOUT CHECKING THE FACTS ON JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT.
You should be ashamed of publishing such an article. Accusing a Judge on the basis of your unresearched opinion is a shame on the name of good journalism and had brought down the image of The Print in my mind by several notches. You should apologize.
The trick that media outlets like The Print, The Wire, Scroll In, NDTV etc follow is to call itself independent while clearly being held prisoner to its ideological biases. While reporting on this matter, The Print should have also mentioned that it was the same Justice Sikri who reduced the time given to BJP to prove its majority in the Karnataka assembly from 15 days to 2 days. But then, that information would have come in the way of “liberal, secular” journalism, where innuendos pass off as news.
I have observed Shekhar Gupta for a long time, who has taken the lead along with IE in instigating caste hatred in the society. The scurrilous report imputing motives to Justice Sikri, only proves how people like SG are a serious threat to the India nation and good decent people, just because they do not fit the narrative of this yellow journalist who accepted two Padma Awards. Shame on the SG and the entire Print team. All right thinking people should write to the investors of the PRint and ask them to withdraw their investment. India does not need garbage like the Print.
Maneesh Chhibber should be ashamed of himself. He has lowered the standard of journalism by writing a story without ascertaining full facts. Even now, he is not stating full facts. Here are some excerpts from ‘the Mint’: “It is not an assignment on regular basis. There is no monthly remuneration. There may be two to three hearings in a year. There was no question of staying in London or at any other place. The government had approached him for the part-time assignment last month. He gave his (oral) consent. The job required attending two to three hearing per year and came without emoluments.”
A full Bench of the apex court might wish to consider framing suitable guidelines to regulate the acceptance of post retirement jobs / assignments from the government. Retired judges possess a lifetime of knowledge, experience, specialised knowledge. At 65 – 62 for the high courts – the judges have at least a decade of useful life ahead of them. Judicial propriety rules out their accepting the sort of work retired mandarins are offered. There is nothing grubby in some of them working in government related jobs, provided safeguards are built into the system to protect their independence while working as judges. It should not appear, too, that the government is playing favourites. 2. In the case of Justice Sikri, it has been clarified that the assignment did not carry a monthly remuneration, nor permanent residence in London. It would have involved two or three sittings in a year, for which he would have been paid an honorarium.
The bhakths appear to be firing their Joseph Goebbels terrorist missiles on the poor Print!
What a shame guys!
Your dirty tricks are too obvious to readers of print!
Biased people don’t read the print, except to fire their terrorist missiles!
Print is a place for sane discussion and discourse!
It is not a place for thu thu main main abuse of pavement clamour!
Print has simply reported the different facts that are relevant to the matter in issue.
It is for the readers to make up their opinion based on the facts reported by the print and any other facts or information they might find as to the nature of the current political situation!
Despite the present Chief Justice having been a party to the press meeting of the four judges, no effect of that meeting or stance is being seen in effect since his elevation as Chief Justice.
These are perilous times and it’s time the great people of India begin to call spade a spade!
You must say what part of the report of print is not true or where and what if any, inappropriate allegation or insinuation has been made by the print of the reporter as per the established ethics and principles of journalism!
You mercenary bhakth guys discredit yourself further lower by seeking to move your your sights towards this extraordinary online journal which is doing a great service To India and Indian people by jusxtaposing it’s ethical journalism to the filthy mercenary journalism!
Scoot away guys!
Suppose the print reports that Damodardas Subodhdas Deshaabhimaani works in office A. It then adds that office A is well known for corruption. What will one conclude?
“Despite the present Chief Justice having been a party to the press meeting of the four judges, no effect of that meeting or stance is being seen in effect since his elevation as Chief Justice.”. Pray tell us what do you mean by that? Do you mean that the Supreme court should have delivered a judgement that is to the liking of the congress and the other oppostion parties in Rafale case and CBI director case?
Our deepest respects to Justice Sikri for doing the right thing. He has undone a wrong that may have thoughtlessly been visited upon him. A Print reader posted earlier in the day how the Commonwealth nomination being within the knowledge of the honorable CJI, good judgment lay in not deputing him to the HLC. At that level, along with knowledge of the law, sensitivity to issues of public affairs and perceptions is equally important. 2. See this from the government’s point of view. They would have been happy if the CJI himself had attended the HLC meeting. Perhaps, as his predecessor, CJI Thakur, has opined, he would have suggested a hearing be granted to Shri Alok Verma, delaying the decision by a day but ensuring natural justice. On Rafale, the government gave the apex court all the material and assistance it required, including sensitive price information it was initially not inclined to share. And yet there has been such an awkward judgment. 3. The Print is doing its job. Things would have been so much better if everyone else in the media was doing so as well.
ThePrint is having faith in Mallikarjun Kharge whereas not having any faith on senior sitting SC judge appointed by CJI…. Only a few days ago….. Your bias is clear…..
To hell with ThePrint….. ThePrint itself is claiming that Justice Sikri had given consent to join CSLAT last month and whereas CJI nominated him in the committee only last week….. Then where is the controversy….. ThePrint is doubting the CJI and Justice Sikri as well…… The fourth estate has also failed this great country….
This is a complete victory for yellow journalism n pseudo secular liberal media. The Print team should hang their heads in shame for publishing such unsubstantiated, biased and derogatory report about a SC judge. This is the saddest day for India. We now have a truly independent but utterly irresponsible media!!
I hope better sense prevails n Print apologizes and request the honorable judge to withdraw his request. Hope Shekhar does this in National Interest.
I agree, this is really shameful of the media to try and portray someone in a bad light. How sad must these people be who have devoted their lives to the nation? Irresponsible reporting is running our country. Journalism needs to be re-invented in this country.
What part of their report is “Yellow” journalism ?
What facts do you refute ?
How about a reasoned argument, instead of an emotional burst, atleast few factual arguments along with emotion ?
Worth reading https://swarajyamag.com/politics/how-the-moeen-qureshi-case-brought-about-the-downfall-of-alok-verma to understand what the accusations against Alok Verma are. Now tell me, has the ThePrint discussed any of these points in their coverage of the Alok Verma issue?
Comments are closed.