[Farmers’ Protests] Committee called names, disappointed to see what was reported in Press: CJI SA Bobde - LIVE UPDATES from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is hearing the challenges made to the validity of the recently enacted Farm Acts. Also before the Supreme Court are petitions challenging the ongoing farmers' protests in reaction to the controversial laws.

The Bench of CJI SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian is hearing the matter.

Earlier, the three-judge Bench had stayed the implementation of the three controversial Farm Laws.

The Court also ordered the formation of a four-member committee to hear all the parties and stakeholders and submit a report to the Court about the same.

The names initially proposed were those of Bhupinder Singh Mann (National President of Bharatiya Kisan Union), Dr. Pramod Kumar Joshi, Ashok Gulati (Agricultural Economist) and Anil Ghanwat (President of Shetkari Sanghatana).

However, the future of the Committee stands unknown after Bhupinder Singh Mann recused himself citing the "prevailing sentiments and apprehensions amongst the farm unions and public in general".

The Supreme Court's choice of members to the Committee has been under fire since all the members of the Committee were reportedly those who had expressed support to the contentious laws.

In this regard, a plea was filed recently seeking the reconstitution of the committee with retired Supreme Court judges and representatives of farmer unions.

On Tuesday, however, CJI Bobde orally opined that person would not be disqualified from being a member of a committee merely because he/ she has previously expressed an opinion on the subject matter.

Live updates from the hearings today feature on this page.

Hearing begins

Attorney General KK Venugopal: We had moved an application in the last hearing.

Solicitor-General: Please consider having this hearing on January 25

Supreme Court: It is highly inappropriate for the court to act as a first authority to allow or disallow protesters. We can allow you to withdraw the application. You are the executive and have the power to look into this. Its an issue of law and order and of the police

Advocate AP Singh: I appear for Bhartiya Kisan Union Lokshakti. We are law abiding farmers. The principle of natural justice be violated by appointing these people as the Farmers Committee members.

CJI: We are not on this. we allow AG to withdraw his application

Advocate for Kisan Mahapanchayat, Ajay Choudhary appears

CJI: You rejected the Constitution of the committee a day before, it was Mr Dave's client who rejected it. The committee was formed the next day after it was rejected

SG: Can we please see the names of the committee Mr Dushyant Dave is appearing for?

CJI: Show us the names

SG: We just want to be sure so that we know, sometimes you are there and sometimes you are not there

Senior Advocate Dave: We are only there when we are invited. It was highly inappropriate for you to appear in the case in our absence.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan reads the names of the 8 unions: BKU unit of Sidhupur, Rajewal, Rajesh Tikait, Jagdish...

Bhushan: We are only representing 8 farmer unions.

Senior Advocate Dave: Kisan Mahapanchayat is not a protesting farmer unions. How are they here?

Advocate Choudhary: We are there in Rajasthan. Not Punjab or Haryana My impleadment application was allowed in Bhartiya Kisan Party plea

Advocate Prashant Bhushan: Our clients have stated that they will not take part in the committee

CJI: You were not there when we passed orders. Mr Dave wanted to keep the matter later so that instructions were taken

Senior Advocate Dave: The case was kept for orders, not hearing.

Dave: We were not given time to seek instructions. There were orders...that is not correct. I have got the entire argument sheet from Bar & Bench and Livelaw and other places

CJI: You were expected to appear. This is not proper. Don't aggravate the situation.

CJI: When the matter was on board you have to appear. For orders you don't have to appear. This is something new! We are not interested in this any further

Dave: There was genuine understanding on our part...

CJI: Would you be interested to be impleaded in Kisan Mahapanchayat plea

Bhushan: No, my lord. Our unions will not appear before any committee.

Advocate Choudhary: We seek for the number of members to be increased in the committee. All the 4 members have already expressed their opinion about the laws. The persons sitting in committee should have open minds and they must be equal

CJI: You people unthinkingly cast aspersions on people. BS Mann had called for amendments in the law. You cannot brand people like this. People should have an opinion. What people should have no opinion? Even judges express opinion.

CJI: Everyone argues before a judge as if he is arguing on a clean slate. Branding people has become a cultural thing now. The committee was not given any adjudicatory power. We are not addressing farmers, we are talking to counsel who should know how members are appointed

CJI: Somebody has expressed an opinion so you think there is bias. If you don't want to appear then don't appear. But don't brand people and malign them and on top of that you cast aspersions on the court. We had told Mr Salve that its not for court to entertain this.

CJI: We only intervened for the common interest of the people. Public opinion is important but not determinative for the court. If you generate public opinion that malign someone then court should not fall into that. You play with people's reputation without regard to anything.

CJI: We have serious reservations that committee members were called names. They were called names and then said we had an interest in that. You malign people according to majority opinion. I am disappointed to see what has been reported in the press.

Advocate Choudhary: We filed the application after reading press reports

CJI: We are not blaming you personally. You are appearing for a Kisan Panchayat and you want reconstitution. But how can you cast aspersions on the committee members?

CJI: They are the most brilliant people in agriculture today. You just malign them for some opinion expressed in past.

CJI: Every judge on a case now had expressed a different opinion at some point of time. In this body politic, haven't you seen opinions change when contrary points are heard? Supreme Court has appointed someone and you shred their reputation.

Court issues notice in the application filed by Kisan Mahapanchayat. Asks Attorney General KK Venugopal to respond.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve: In all humility, I submit that this impression that you have passed this order to appease one section needs to be set aside. There needs to be judicial order. Newspapers create public opinion and does not reflect public opinion.

CJI: We have conferred no adjudication powers to the committee

Salve: Once you make it clear that the committee is part of judicial process and then after, someone writes any nonsense, then I will be moving contempt

CJI: This Court had appointed an expert committee in the field of agriculture. The purpose of appointment was clear to listen to the grievances of parties affected by the impugned laws with reference to provisions enacted therein. Adjudicatory powers have not been conferred on the committee.

CJI: Committee's roles is to hear affected parties by Farm Acts and make a report to the court. Bhupinder Singh Mann of the Kisan Coordination Committee has resigned. This has resulted in a vacancy. An application has been filed to fill the vacancy. Notice issued.

CJI: Advocate Prashant Bhushan states that unions represented by him does not wish to represent before any Farmers' Committee, so they have nothing to say here.

CJI to Prashant Bhushan: Please see what solution can be found. In this case, just saying (you are) not appearing before the committee will not help. You have to counsel the parties to bring about peace

Bhushan: Yes, I have advised them there should be peace

CJI: Resolution?

Advocate Bhushan: The farmers' unions say they don't want any amendments now. They want only repeal. They say no discussions was held on Farm Bills.

CJI: In a democracy, other than repeal, the Court can set aside a law and Court is seized off this. The law is not in force at the moment

Bhushan: They are trying to put democratic pressure. They fear that if they get up and go away since laws are not in force, then later if courts come to the conclusion that laws are constitutional and interim orders are withdrawn, then what happens. That's why they are apprehensive

CJI: If we uphold the Farmers' Bills, then you can start the agitation. But peace has to be maintained.

Bhushan: : Farmers only want to celebrate Republic Day on outer ring road. (Theres is) No attempt to destroy peace

CJI: See that your clients assure the citizens of Delhi complete peace. As a court we are only expressing our anxiety.

AG Venugopal: 5,000 tractors are coming inside the city. They will go all around the city.

CJI: Ask the authorities and Bhushan's client on how it can be peaceful. These are matters purely in the Executive domain