The Chief Justice of India, P. Sathasivam, officially confirmed that a Supreme Court inquiry committee established a prima facie case of unwelcome sexual conduct against retired Justice A.K. Ganguly, while concluding that no further administrative follow-up action could be initiated due to his prior retirement.
Findings of the Supreme Court Fact-Finding Committee
Following widespread media reports in November 2013 regarding allegations of sexual harassment made by a law graduate against a former Supreme Court judge, CJI P. Sathasivam constituted a three-judge inquiry committee comprising Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice H.L. Dattu, and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai to ascertain the truth of the claims. The committee scrutinised the written and oral statements of the intern, affidavits from three supporting witnesses, and the written statement submitted by retired Justice A.K. Ganguly.
In its formal report submitted on November 28, 2013, the committee unanimously concluded that the material on record disclosed a prima facie act of unwelcome verbal and non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature committed by Justice Ganguly. The incident occurred on the evening of December 24, 2012, in a room at Hotel Le Meridien in New Delhi, where the intern had visited to assist the judge in his official work.
The inquiry committee conducted three formal sittings, during which it examined detailed electronic records, hotel visitor logs, and witness statements corroborating the intern's narrative. The committee noted that the complainant, a graduate of a premier national law university, had provided a detailed, consistent account of the event. Justice Ganguly appeared before the committee and submitted a written denial, asserting that his interactions with the intern were entirely professional and related to work assignments.
The establishment of judicial clerkship and research internship programs across premier law universities in India had grown rapidly during the preceding decade. Law graduates regularly worked with sitting and retired judges on complex research projects, law commission reports, and arbitration proceedings. The inquiry committee observed that young legal researchers depend heavily on the mentorship of senior jurists, making strict adherence to professional conduct and institutional ethical boundaries essential for maintaining workplace safety.
Full Court Decision on Administrative Jurisdiction
Despite establishing a prima facie case of misconduct, Chief Justice Sathasivam clarified that the Supreme Court could not take administrative action against Justice Ganguly. The Full Court of the Supreme Court met on December 5, 2013, and resolved that representations concerning former judges who have demitted office upon superannuation are not entertainable on the administrative side of the Apex Court. Furthermore, the intern was not an intern on the official roll of the Supreme Court at the time of the incident.
Consequently, the CJI announced that no further internal follow-up action was required or permissible by the court administration. Copies of the inquiry committee report were furnished to both the complainant intern and Justice Ganguly. Justice Ganguly publicly denied the allegations, maintaining that he was a victim of circumstance, while public pressure mounted regarding his continuation as chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission.
The Full Court resolution established an administrative boundary regarding the disciplinary authority of the Chief Justice of India over superannuated judicial officers. The decision clarified that while the Supreme Court maintains administrative control over sitting judges of the Apex Court and subordinate judicial staff, its internal administrative mechanisms cannot be invoked to institute disciplinary penalties against former judges after they have retired from service.
Institutional Accountability and Workplace Protection Frameworks
The controversy highlighted significant procedural gaps regarding workplace harassment procedures and institutional accountability within the Indian judiciary. Legal academics studying fundamental rights often consult human rights LLB study notes to analyze how constitutional guarantees of dignity apply within judicial institutions. The case also raised questions regarding the applicability of the landmark Vishaka guidelines and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013 to judicial interns and temporary researchers.
Senior advocates and amicus curiae Indira Jaising and Anand Grover emphasized the necessity of establishing clear, confidential grievance mechanisms for legal researchers. In procedural law, court precedent such as Supreme Court procedural jurisprudence illustrates how higher courts balance institutional reputation with fair inquiry standards. The incident ultimately spurred the formal adoption of detailed gender sensitization and sexual harassment regulations within the Supreme Court of India.
In response to the inquiry committee's disclosures, the Supreme Court framed the Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations 2013. These regulations established a permanent Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) empowered to receive complaints, conduct inquiries, and recommend protective measures for female lawyers, interns, court staff, and visitors.
Parallel Legal Remedies and Criminal Investigation
Because administrative action by the Supreme Court was precluded by Justice Ganguly's retired status, the legal focus shifted to standard criminal law remedies. Following formal complaints submitted to the Delhi Police and public advocacy by legal reform groups, law enforcement authorities examined potential criminal charges under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code governing criminal force and outraging the modesty of a woman.
The proceedings demonstrated that while internal administrative jurisdiction ends upon a judge's retirement, criminal liability under statutory law remains fully operative. The case stands as a landmark moment in Indian legal history, prompting mandatory anti-harassment protocols across court systems, law universities, and legal registries nationwide.
Following sustained public debate and representations from civil rights organizations, Justice Ganguly resigned from his post as Chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission in January 2014. The case remains a central reference point in discussions surrounding judicial ethics, workplace safety for legal trainees, and procedural mechanisms for holding judicial figures accountable under statutory law.