The SC said that information regarding the setting up of the Justice S.A. Bobde-led in-house committee may amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy and breach of fiduciary relationships. New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to share any information about how it resolved a former employee’s sexual harassment complaint against former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, RTI documents with The Wire show. In replies to queries filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, the Supreme Court said that information regarding the setting up of the Justice S.A. Bobde-led in-house committee which probed the allegations of sexual harassment against Justice Gogoi and the induction of Justice Indu Malhotra as its third member in place of Justice N.V. Ramanna may amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy and breach of fiduciary relationships – and hence compromise the independence of the judiciary. In a request filed on November 20, 2019, Bhardwaj had asked for: a) a copy of the resolution through which the Bobde committee was formed b) a copy of the resolution through which Justice Indu Malhotra was inducted into the committee c) a copy of any terms of reference, mandate, rules, guidelines etc governing the committee’s functioning d) the date on which the committee’s report was submitted to the Supreme Court. Replying to her RTI, the court’s additional registrar and chief public information officer, Ajay Agrawal, said that the information sought in the first two points can’t be provided in view of the “independence of judiciary, proportionality test, fiduciary relationship, invasion of the right to privacy and breach of duty of confidentiality etc. with reference to provisions of Sect i on 8(1)( j) and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2 0 0 5, which are applicable in the present matter” Regarding the guidelines and terms of reference for the committee, Agrawal directed Bhardwaj towards the in-house procedure laid down to deal with complaints of sexual harassment against sitting Supreme Court and high court judges. Speaking to The Wire, Bhardwaj said, “Although general details about the in-house procedure are available on the court’s official website, the procedure is completely silent on what is to be done if the complaint is against the CJI. In fact, the CJI is the point person who is supposed to enforce what emerges from the process. The complaint against the CJI was an exceptional case and that is why I sought the information from the Supreme Court.”