SECTION 144 IMPOSED OUTSIDE SUPREME COURT, MANY DETAINED. Abhishek Tripathi LAW CRITIQUE Tue, May 07, 2019, at ,04:49 PM After the in-house inquiry panel gave clean chit to the CJI Ranjan Gogoi in the alleged sexual harassment case by the former Supreme Court employee there was a lot of chaos and criticism raised. Many eminent personalities criticised the inquiry and clean chit on different grounds. Amidst heavy security outside the Supreme Court campus, a group of people held a protest against yesterday’s Supreme Court In-House Committee decision to clear Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of the sexual harassment allegations levelled against him. Police on Tuesday imposed Section 144 outside the Supreme Court a day after an in-house panel gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) in a sexual harassment case against him. The journalists covering the protest have been released, over 30 women activists have been detained by the police at Mandir Marg Police Station, Delhi. Justice A. P. Shah, former CJ, Delhi HC "I am extremely disturbed by how this inquiry has been held. Initially it seemed as though the Supreme Court was looking to remedy the situation brought about by the extraordinary hearing. Ideally the probe should have been conducted by an external committee, but to compensate, the court added two women judges into the committee. But even so, in no sense can this be called an inquiry. And what followed did not help much either", he said in an interview to Indian Express. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, tweeted #NotInMyName “This is a scandal Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India was also a case of sexual harassment by a sitting High Court of Karnataka. It is a pre RTI case and is bad in law Demand the disclosure of the findings of the enquiry committee in public interest” Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate "The inquiry in this case, which has now concluded, did not meet the open and fair standard", said Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate, in an article written in The Hindu. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, tweeted “An In-house committee of the CJI's colleagues which held informal proceedings in-camera (without recording the proceedings) without allowing the complainant any lawyer or support person (making her walk out) has given a hasty clean chit to the CJI in a 'sealed cover'! Surprised?” Karuna Nundy, Advocate Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy cited three important problems with the enquiry report — limited participation of the complainant, the lack of a retired woman judge as an external member and the complainant not being allowed a lawyer.