xxiii. I have never heard that an administrative committee which has no authority over a retired judge will assume jurisdiction to find truth of allegations made in newspapers. Supreme Court has repeatedly held in its judicial side that serious allegations cannot be even prima facie established except on proper appreciation of evidence by judicial authorities. There is no question of appreciating materials even prima facie without an affidavit from the intern. Even affidavits, Supreme Court held on the judicial side cannot be evidence in cases of factual allegations of personal nature. The intern only made a statement and on that there cannot be any administrative inquiry to find out truth of allegations. But I regret that this was done to me after giving a highly daunting welcome and this is beyond my imagination. The report of the Committee, if I may humbly point out, has no legal status.

xxiv. From your Lordship's comments on the report of the committee it appers that the Full Bench of the Court is of the opinion that the Court has no jurisdiction over a retired judge, yet the Report of the committee was published. No enquiry was conducted in a summary manner, without fair or proper opportunity to me and such a report could not qualify to be an act of Court which warranted publication. The Report is not a judgment, order or decree. To publish such tentative opinions in this fashion and use the expression 'operative' in the communique is completely unauthorised even if it is done on the administrative side. I was under the impression that the Chief Justice and the members of the committee had to act according to the decision of the Full Court. The constitution of the Committee and the preparation of the report is not even ratified by the Full Court since it clearly held that there was no jurisdiction. In my view, there has been a failure to adhere to, if I may say so, discipline and restraint while exercising power under the authority of the Office.