The judiciary and the Bar appeared to be vertically split on the way the Supreme Court has approached the allegation of sexual harassment levelled by a former employee of the court against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.

The Supreme Court Bar Association, one of the most dominant lawyers’ association in the country, adopted a resolution assailing the manner in which a special sitting on the allegation was conducted on Saturday.

The Bar association said the procedure adopted for conducting the court proceedings on April 20 was “in violation of procedure established by law as well as principle of natural justice” and sought a “full court” meeting to deal with the issue.

The Chief Justice had convened and participated in the sitting although he had refrained from signing the order that suggested media restraint.

The executive committee of the Bar association, which passed the resolution, made another significant mention.

“The EC (executive committee) further resolves that without prejudice to any enquiry which may be initiated as above, it (the full court) shall collate all the materials and facts with regard to the said allegations from social media, electronic media, print media and other available sources which may be considered in its next meeting.”

The allegations were reported in detail by three online platforms. In the order on Saturday after the special sitting, the Supreme Court bench had left it to the wisdom of the media to show restraint and act responsibly.

The court order had added that “we would therefore at this juncture leave it to the media to take off such material which is undesirable”. The Bar association’s statement suggests it wants the court to consider the material made public by the portals.

Another lawyers’ body, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, has also expressed deep reservations about what it called “procedural impropriety”.

“The allegations of the ex-employee of the Supreme Court have to be dealt with as per the established procedure of law and the law must be applied in each and every case uniformly,” said the association of advocates on record.

It sought the immediate appointment of a committee headed by four Supreme Court judges to “impartially investigate and inquire into the allegations” and give an “independent finding”.

The Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association rallied behind the Chief Justice, saying the allegation was fabricated and baseless. “Such unscrupulous allegations are aimed at maligning the institution.… The entire staff is united and stand firmly with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to defeat the malicious attempt of external forces to target the judiciary,” a statement issued by the association said.

The Supreme Court, which usually assembles every day at 10.30am, did so at 10.48am on Monday, leading to speculation about a full court meeting of all the 27 judges.

All the judges of the top court met informally over tea, during which the issue was discussed but no formal resolution was adopted. Sources privy to the meeting said there was no formal full court meeting.

Most judges referred to the allegation but many described it as an attempt to “browbeat” or “intimidate” the judiciary and felt the institution must respond in a united manner, the sources said.

“The question of holding a full court meeting to discuss the issue is not yet under consideration,” a top judicial officer said, referring to the demand of the Bar association.

Some judges are understood to have expressed the opinion that if frivolous complaints were entertained, every judge could be subjected to vicious attacks, particularly by political and corporate entities.

The judges dispersed after 30 minutes. The Chief Justice on Monday heard over 50 matters.

Advocate Utsav Bains, who had claimed that he was approached by a person to level allegations against the Chief Justice, filed a formal affidavit in the Supreme Court in support of his claim.

In the affidavit, Bains said the person identified himself as “Ajay”, claimed to be a relative of the accuser and wanted the advocate to address a media conference and take up her case on pro bono basis.

“Ajay” had first offered to pay Rs 50 lakh and enhanced it to Rs 1.5 crore, which he declined, Bains said.