xiii. Your Lordship's communique dated 5.12.13 proceeds on the following basis "on account of the fact that the report in the media appeared that it was a 'Supreme Court judge' a committee was constituted and it has submitted its rport". Any one reading it will understand that as the caption of the media report did not indicate whether or not it was a retired judge a committee was formed under some misconception.

xiv. However this is contradicted by a letter dated 21.11.2013 of the Member Secretary of the committee. Obviously the letter was written to me under Your Lordship's instruction to the following effect: "The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has constituted a three member committee comprising ..........to enquire into the allegations of sexual harassment levelled by a law intern against a former Supreme Court Judge" (underlined by me)

xv. The contradiction cannot be reconciled and is very alarming. I regret to point out that the attempt made in Your Lordship's communique dated 05.12.2013 to justify the so called exercise which is not endorsed by the Full Court resolution of the same date, is far too feeble for any person of ordinary prudence to discern. I do not know why I am singled out for such adverse discrimination by an administrative order sans jurisdiction.

xvi. If the proceedings were confidential, I am unable to understand why Court Officials were kept in the room. I am shocked that though the press reports speak about a committee of three judges, but the Registrar General (who holds the rank of a District Judge) was appointed as member secretary. His presence was inappropriate. My statement was not even recorded by the Judges themselves. They kept their faces turned away.