Former Supreme Court judge, A K Ganguly, indicted over sexually harassing a law intern, on Tuesday came under attack from noted jurist Harish Salve who charged him with "casting aspersions" by accusing her of acting at somebody's behest.
The senior advocate said Ganguly's explanation over the intern's charge and allegations against the three-member panel of the apex court judge, which "prima facie" held him guilty of "unwelcome behaviour" towards the young lady, "spoils his case".
Salve, a former Solicitor General, who was responding to the allegations by Ganguly in his letter to the Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam, "regretted" that the retired judge's explanation amount to undermining the institution of the Supreme Court.
Ganguly, who is the Chairman of West Bengal Human Rights Commission, in his letter to the CJI, had on Monday said there was a "palpable design" to malign him as he had given judgements against "powerful quarters".
He also complained that the Supreme Court had not given him a proper hearing.
Salve said "such an explanation has never been given. It is a matter of regret. There is a young lady who has made a complaint. The factual narrative is not now very far apart except in one vital area....," he told a TV channel.
"Three judges saw his demeanour when he gave his explanation and saw her demeanour too. They have thought prima facie there is much in what she is saying. He needs to deal with the allegation rather than cast aspersions on this young lady that she is acting at the behest of somebody.
"I think this explanation, if at all, spoils his case. It does not do any justice to him and I wish he had not offered this explanation. His allegations against the panel are equally unfortunate.
"He has been the member of the court. For him to suggest that people can't have faith in Supreme Court judges where they are dealing with one of their own is too undermine the faith people of India have in this institution," Salve said.
The senior advocate said Justice Ganguly has not disagreed with the facts narrated by her before the panel.
"She says she was called to his hotel room, he agrees. She says in her affidavit the manner in which drinks and dinner were served in the hotel room late in the evening. I don't think there is any difference in the factual narrative. He says that it was a cordial atmosphere. What was cordial for him was obviously not cordial for her," he said.