Chronology of events in sexual harassment allegations against CJI

Following is the chronology of events relating to the allegations of sexual harassment levelled against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi by a former woman employee of the apex court:

Apr 19: The former woman SC staffer sent a letter, along with affidavits, to 22 apex court judges giving details of the alleged harassment. She claimed that as a junior court assistant, employed with the Supreme Court between May 1, 2014 and December 21, 2018, she was harassed at the CJI's home.

Apr 20: An SC bench, headed by the CJI, holds a hearing on the allegations of sexual harassment and persecution. The CJI recuse himself midway.

 

Apr 22: Lawyer Utsav Singh Bains claims in the SC that there was a conspiracy to make the CJI resign by "framing him" in a false case of sexual harassment.

Apr 23: Justice S A Bobde, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, appointed to conduct an in-house inquiry into the allegations. Justices N V Ramana and Indira Banerjee are other members.

Apr 24: The complainant expresses reservations over presence of Justice Ramana in the inquiry panel on the ground that he is a close friend of the CJI.

Apr 25: Justice Ramana recuses himself from the three-member panel. Justice Bobde appoints Justice Indu Malhotra into the panel

Apr 25: SC constitutes one-man panel of former apex court judge Justice A K Patnaik to hold inquiry into allegations of larger conspiracy to frame the CJI. Clarifies one-man panel will not go into issue of sexual harassment allegations against CJI.

Apr 26: The woman appears before the in-house inquiry panel.

Apr 29: The woman appears before the in-house inquiry panel for the second time and records her statement.

Apr 30: She appears and later issues press statement that she is walking out of the proceedings of the panel.

May 5: The SC denies media report that Justices RF Nariman and DY Chandrachud met Justice SA Bobde on inquiry into allegations against the CJI.

May 6: The in-house panel finds "no substance" in allegations of sexual harassment against the CJI. A notice by the office of Supreme Court Secretary General said the report of the committee was not liable to be made public.