The Hush Post| 20:48 pm| two-minute-read
Justice AK Sikri, who apart from PM Narendra Modi was part of the three-member committee which removed Alok Verma as CBI Chief recently, allegedly got a plum posting for a seat on London’s Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitration Tribunal (CSAT).
However, after the news broke out that he had got a plum posting and that one thing led to another, Justice Sikri withdrew his consent.
(What’s the context: Alok Verma was sent on leave by the government in October last year over his feud with CBI’s No. 2 Rakesh Asthana. The Supreme Court quashed this leave order last week. Then, a select panel, which the Supreme Court had the exclusive power to act against a CBI director met to remove Alok Verma as the agency’s chief. Justice AK Sikri was on the panel and along with PM Narendra Modi removed Verma as CBI chief.)
According to India Today, the news report of the Modi government giving him a plum post-retirement posting led to questions being asked about whether the government was “rewarding” Justice AK Sikri for a “favour” (read: Voting to remove Alok Verma as CBI chief).
Following this, Justice Sikri chose to withdraw his consent for the London job. Justice Sikri had first given his consent sometime in December. However, the timing of the nomination has raised eyebrows among those in legal circles.
Advocate Indira Jaising, who is the former additional solicitor general of India, took to social media to ask why information regarding the nomination had not been disclosed before Justice Sikri was made part of the select committee that ultimately removed Alok Verma as CBI chief.
“Justice Sikri should have disclosed this before he sat on the committee as the nominee of the Chief Justice of India, the decision is vitiated for this reason also, and the post requires “high moral character?” Where is the constitutional morality?” Jaising asked.