Breaking his silence in the wake of a mounting campaign to force him to resign as chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission,Justice AK Ganguly questioned the manner in which the Chief Justice of India handled the charge of sexual misconduct against him and asserted that the report of the Committee probing allegations against him had no legal status.

The Full Court neither approved the constitution of the committee nor ratified its report, and the Chief Justice was bound to function under its authority. Moreover, there were several discrepancies and legal infirmities in the report, which the Chief Justice had directed to be uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court.

Strongly insinuating an attack upon his reputation on account of certain cases he had to sit in judgment over, Justice Ganguly questioned the public conduct of the Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, and the fact that a media report became the basis of the Attorney General GE Vahanvati approaching the court to act against him. The Attorney General had come under a cloud earlier in April this year over matters pertaining to the coalmines allotment scandal, which resulted in the resignation of the Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval.

In a combative letter to the Chief Justice on December 23, a copy of which was sent to the President of India, Justice Ganguly tore into the probe and accused the Chief Justice of not addressing him correctly (respectfully). He said that the intern revealed her name (to the Court); there was no reason for the Chief Justice not to know that Justice Ganguly was a retired judge; and there was no reason for him not to be able to find out that the intern was not [ever] on the rolls of the Supreme Court. A three judge committee was not needed to ascertain any of these facts.

At no time prior to the formation of the committee did the intern make any complaint before the Supreme Court or the Judges. It was “presumably on a direction by the Committee (that) she gave her statement”. Justice Ganguly said that a news report in The Times of India, dated November 12, 2013, without any verification, could not be the basis of a petition by the Attorney General on which the Chief Justice reportedly took action.

The judge said that he responded to the request of the Committee to appear before it in good faith, but resented the conduct of the officials of the Court and the proceedings before the Committee. As soon as he entered the Supreme Court, he was “surrounded by a posse of security officers which was unbecoming of the institution. I was treated almost like a person in captivity”.

The Committee, Justice Ganguly said, did not give him any of the papers or previous minutes of its proceedings. The Registrar General and some Lady Court Masters were present though he was told that the Committee was formed under the administrative order of the Chief Justice and its proceedings were confidential. He was not told that the ambit of the enquiry was to find out the truth of the allegations in the newspaper article. When he learnt that the intern had made a statement with certain annexures, and asked for a copy, he was “shattered to be told curtly that I will not be given a copy as it was confidential and that I must make the statement immediately. There was a compulsive tone to it”.

Justice Ganguly said that he then hurriedly glanced at the statement and affidavits running into over 60 pages and gave his version of events while denying improper conduct. He said that though he was refused a copy of the intern’s statement, he was shocked to find that the substantial portion was leaked verbatim to the Bengali Newspaper, Ebala, dated November 30, 2013. The newspaper claimed to have got its information from the Law Ministry. Justice Ganguly urged the Chief Justice to order an enquiry to find out who leaked the document to the Law Ministry and to the press even before the Full Court could consider the matter on December 5, and before the Chief Justice could pass any order on it on the same day. He said he was also not shown the intern’s oral statement, though the Committee report refers to her oral and written statements.

The sequence of events in the report makes the entire proceedings questionable. For instance, though the communiqué of December 5 claims that the Committee was set up to ascertain the truth of a media report about a Supreme Court Judge, the Member Secretary of the Committee wrote to Justice Ganguly on November 21, stating that the Committee had been set up to investigate allegations of sexual harassment levelled by a law intern against a former Supreme Court judge!

Then, if the proceedings were confidential, there was no reason why the court officials were present. The media reported a committee of three judges, but the Registrar General (who holds the rank of a District Judge) was appointed the member secretary. Justice Ganguly’s statement was not even recorded by the Judges themselves; it was simultaneously typed by the Lady Court officers and he was made to sign it without being given a copy, then, or to this date.

Justice Ganguly questions if the Full Court after stating that it has no jurisdiction of even administrative nature over representation against the former judges, authorised the Chief Justice to issue a communiqué and publish the conclusions of a committee report which casts serious aspersions on him. The entire procedure – the statement of the intern being recorded behind the back of the judge, and the judge’s reply recorded behind her back – was unheard of. And since the proceedings were not formal, nothing was on affirmation (oath).

The Supreme Court, he recalled, has repeatedly held in its judicial side that serious allegations cannot be even prima facie established except on proper appreciation of evidence by the judicial authorities. Even affidavits cannot be regarded as evidence in cases of factual allegations of a personal nature. The intern only made a statement and on that there cannot be any administrative inquiry to find out the truth of the allegations. Hence, the report of the Committee has no legal status.

The events suggest a concerted move to tarnish his image as he had judged certain issues without fear or favour and “if that triggers a collateral attack on me then it poses a threat to the independence of the judiciary”. Justice Ganguly said that he had learnt through the media that the Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising had distributed copies of the intern’s affidavit before the Supreme Court Committee. He asked if this had the prior approval of the Chief Justice or any of the members of the Committee.

More pertinently, the report of the Committee sent to Justice Ganguly is dated November 27, 2013, and the Chief Justice’s communiqué is dated December 5; the Full Court met on December 5, but its resolution was not supplied to him. A journalist gave him a copy of the affidavit distributed by Indira Jaising, which was allegedly sworn before a notary public in Bangalore on November 29, 2013. Jaising held a press conference in Kolkata around December 15 and said that the affidavit was filed by the intern before the Supreme Court which gave its report on November 27. Asking how this was possible, Justice Ganguly enclosed a photocopy of the affidavit received from the journalist.

It is pertinent that the intern has still not filed an FIR in the matter, despite a request from the police, and despite triggering a virtual storm in legal circles, and despite having no compunctions about giving an interview to the Wall Street Journal on November 25, in which she is named throughout. There is obviously more to the entire episode than meets the eye, and the judge is not going to take the insults to his honour and dignity lying down. He seems to have a section of the Supreme Court and legal fraternity with him.