The woman told the judges that since her repeated requests for the presence of her lawyer during the panel's proceedings and it's audio and video recording had been denied, she no longer wants to participate in the inquiry.
The woman said in a statement that Tuesday was the third day she had gone to participate before the three-member panel headed by Justice S A Bobde.
"But due to serious concerns and reservations, I am no longer participating in these in-house committee proceedings," she said in a statement.
Expressing serious reservations about the in-house committee, the woman said, "The the committee was an in-house committee of sitting judges junior to the CJI and not an external committee as I had requested."
The woman said during the committee hearing on April 26, the judges on the panel had told her that this was neither an in-house committee proceeding nor a proceeding under the Vishakha Guidelines and that it was an informal proceeding.
"I was asked to narrate my account which I did to the best of my ability even though I felt quite intimidated and nervous in the presence of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and without having a lawyer or support person with me," said the woman.
The woman had pointed out to the committee that she had lost hearing in one ear completely due to stress and that she was undergoing daily treatment. As a consequence, she was unable to hear sometimes the instructions that were being dictated by Justice Bobde to the court official as a record of my statements before the committee.
"Further, the committee declined my request for video recording of the committee proceedings. I was also clearly told that no lawyer/support person could be present with me during the committee hearing," said the woman in her statement for boycotting the in-house inquiry.
She said the committee instructed her orally not to disclose the proceedings of the committee to the media and not to share the proceedings with my lawyer Vrinda Grover.
Last week, Justice N.V. Ramana, who was on the committee initially, had withdrawn after the woman complained that he was a family friend of the Chief Justice and sought the inclusion of a second woman judge. The three-member committee was recast after her objections.
(with inputs from IANS)