Supreme Court's perfidy

The Supreme Court has decided that its administration will not entertain the complaint against Justice A.K.Ganguly on the specious plea that he is retired and that the complainant intern was not employed by the court. The following statement has been issued by the Chief Justice:

"As decided by the Full Court in its Meeting dated December 5, 2013, it is made clear that the representations made against former Judges of this Court are not entertainable by the administration of the Supreme Court,” the CJI’s statement said.

It is a shameful abdication of the court's responsibility. If this is the guiding principle, why did the CJI form a committee of judges to hear the complaint in the first place?

The following extract from the same newspaper report makes Supreme Court's uneasy dithering obvious:

"The CJI said that taking cognizance of the fact that such allegation against a Supreme Court Judge will have a direct bearing on the institution’s reputation and credibility, he had on the same day appointed the three-member committee to ascertain the truth of the allegations."

The committee observed that "complainant's statement prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behaviour by Justice Ganguly". This Eureka conclusion only begs the question. Everyone knows the complaint. We don't require an august committee of honourable judges to read and interpret the complaint. We expected a finding on guilt or otherwise of the retired judge. Sadly, the committee has only dilly dallied. It appears that the court is not yet ready to dispense justice.