While there are many crooked and corrupt officials and authorities in India, there are also some upright, hardworking and competent ones.
It is the duty of the media to criticise and expose the former, but it is also its duty to protect and praise the latter.
But, see how the media has behaved with Justice A.K. Sikri since the removal of CBI director Alok Verma?
Here is an outstanding, totally upright, extremely competent and hardworking judge, for whom I can personally vouch as I was his chief justice in the Delhi High Court when he was a puisne (junior) judge in that court, and I knew him intimately. Yet, our media has sought to tarnish him in mud and ruin his reputation in a mostly rotten and shameless manner.
As chief justice of the Delhi High Court, I had not only to do judicial work but also a lot of administrative work. So, after finishing my judicial work at 4pm, I would usually remain in the court till about 8pm, doing administrative work. On finishing that, I would often enquire if any other judge was still in his chamber? Invariably, I was told Justice Sikri was still there, preparing his judgements, which he would do meticulously. I would go to his chamber and ask him to go home and not over-strain and damage his health.
Justice Sikri's reputation and integrity were impeccable. I never heard any complaint against him.
And yet, this is the man whom much of our media attacked on Sunday, like hounds baying for his blood. So, let me tell the truth.
It all began with a story in an online publication about Justice Sikri's nomination by the Union of India to the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitration Tribunal (CSAT), for which Justice Sikri had given his consent.
This part of the story was no doubt correct.
But a half-truth can be as bad, if not worse than a total lie, as stated in the Latin maxim Suppressio veri suggestio falsus (suppression of the truth is equivalent to expression of a falsehood). The story published in the online publication is guilty of suppressing the full truth, and presenting grossly distorted facts. So, let me tell the full truth:
1. The CSAT is a body that decides service disputes of Commonwealth employees. Its sittings are only held as and when an application is received from a Commonwealth employee alleging breach of contract of service. There are no sittings on a regular basis, and its members are not based permanently in England. They go to the tribunal when there are some case to decide. That usually happens only two or three times a year.
No regular salary is paid to CSAT members. So, the tribunal members are not like judges of the International Court of Justice, who sit permanently at The Hague and are paid regular salaries.
So, to call the CSAT position a 'plum posting', as was done in the story in the online publication, is a complete distortion. It is an attempt by a journalist to sensationalise and peddle 'masala' to the public, which is the regular habit of most Indian journalists nowadays.
2. Justice Sikri had been nominated to the CSAT by the chief justice of India after taking his consent in the first week of December 2018, that is, more than a month before the Supreme Court judgement on January 8, which set aside the order sending Alok Verma on leave, and directed the high-powered committee to decide the matter within a week. It was only after that judgement that the chief justice of India nominated Justice Sikri to the high-powered committee.
So, to link up the decision of the committee to remove Verma from the CBI with Justice Sikri's consent, given a month earlier, to be on the CSAT—as the story in the online publication has tried to do—is absurd and is another example of the shoddy news, which most of the Indian media has made its regular habit.
When he gave his consent to be on the CSAT in the first week of December 2018, Justice Sikri was not a member of the high-powered committee, and even the Supreme Court judgement on Verma's plea had not come. So, how can it be insinuated, as the story in the online publication has done, that the nomination of Justice Sikri to the CSAT was a quid pro quo for his decision to remove Verma from the CBI?
3. Justice Sikri on Sunday withdrew his consent to be on the CSAT.
If the media has any shame left, they will now apologise to Justice Sikri, whose image they tried their best to sully and besmear.
Justice Markandey Katju retired from the Supreme Court in 2011
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK
