It needs enquiry Your Lordship!

The morally offensive remarks by an ex-employee of the Supreme Court charging the Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi with sexual harassment brings to attention several issues.
While the Bar Council of India expressing solidarity with the top Judiciary, may have called the allegation ‘false and cooked up' but the facts, at apparent tenor, remains that the woman has alleged misconduct of a serious nature of a person who has the exalted position in the Country's top judiciary. The Women in Criminal Law Association have rightly distanced themselves from the bar council statement and have said the CJI should not hold office during the process of inquiry.
The woman victim used to work as a junior court assistant at the Supreme Court and wrote to 22 judges of the court 19 April 2019, alleging that Gogoi made sexual advances towards her at his residence in October 2018. She was moved out of his residence office after she rebuffed him. Two months later, she was dismissed from service. The CJI denied the allegations and, instead, said the judiciary was under serious threat. The Supreme Court constituted a special bench 20 April and decided that an appropriate bench would hear the woman's charges.
The way the India's Apex Court responded to the allegations of sexual harassment made by a dismissed junior staff against the Chief Justice of India cannot be appreciated as the complaint of this nature needs to be enquired by the internal mechanism well placed in the Supreme Court.
There is an internal process to initiate an inquiry mandated by the law regarding sexual harassment at the workplace. The Supreme Court itself has an internal sub-committee under its Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at Supreme Court (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Guidelines, 2015. There is a separate ‘in-house procedure' to deal with complaints against judges, under which their judicial peers, and not outsiders, will examine them. It is not known if the complaint will be probed under an internal process, but it is clear that the CJI ought not to have presided over the special Bench that took up the matter that pertained himself.
Questioning the complainant's credibility and the references made to her alleged criminal record when she was not a party to the proceedings was improper.
Justice Gogoi was one of the four judges who spoke out against the manner in which his predecessor as CJI, Dipak Misra, managed the roster. It is ironical that as one who was aggrieved that senior-most judges were kept out of Bench's handling major cases, he went on to form a Bench that included himself but not the two senior-most judges after him. Nor was there a woman judge on the Bench.
It is but natural justice that the inquiry should be conducted in all fairness to the CJI and the complainant. There should be equality before law.