The panel constituted by the Chief Justice of India reported that Justice Ganguly (Retd. Judge of Supreme Court), presently Chairman. Human Rights Commission, W. B., made unwelcome advances towards the lady complainant. On 5th Dec., 2013 the full bench of the Honorable Supreme Court passed an order that since the Supreme Court had no administrative control over a retired judge ‘no further follow up action was required by this court’. 

This order of the court is neither convincing to a common mind nor adheres to the age old saying that ‘justice should not only be done, but should also appear to have been done’. The report prima facie establishes commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, on receipt of this report the Supreme Court could have asked a case to be registered at the appropriate police station. It could also have forwarded the report to West Bengal government with the remark that appropriate administrative action be taken against Justice Ganguly.

It is noteworthy that these days higher courts exhibit so much judicial activism that according to news report of the same day Honorable High Court of Allahabad has constituted a panel to enquire into the conduct of male advocates in court premises (not necessarily inside the court room) on a complaint of female advocates and in a case of alleged beating of professors by students in J. K. Institute the High Court has ordered the Vice Chancellor, D. M. and S. P. to take action within 72 hours and REPORT. Earlier these matters were left for the law and order machinery, which is the appropriate body to deal with them. In such a scenario to ignore a report of commission of a cognizable offence submitted by the Judges raises serious questions in public mind.