CJI : Every judge and lawyer have expressed some views in past and are doing something different now. Does it not happen that people change their opinions after hearing contradictory point of view? Men of integrity do that.
CJI : The basis of your application is that all four people are disqualified. How do you come to that conclusion? They are brilliant minds in the field of agriculture. They are experts. How do you malign them coz they have expressed some views in the past?
CJI : We are very sorry to see the kind of opinions expressed in newspapers.
Solicitor General expresses agreement with the CJI.
CJI says court does not decide on the basis of public opinion.
"How can you play with people's reputation like this? We have serious objections in they being called biased and in saying court was having an interest. You malign people according to majority opinion?"
Chaudhary submits committee members have expressed views in leading newspapers.
CJI : What is this? Are we deciding on the basis of newspaper reports?
Chaudhary : It decides public opinion.
CJI : If you don' want to appear before the committee, we cannot compel you. But you cannot malign people like this and cast aspersions on them and also the court. If you don't want to appear, don't appear. Why do you need to brand people like this?
CJI : Committee has not been given powers to adjudicate. Committee was asked to listen to protesters and give us a report. Where is the question of bias in that?
CJI : Aspersions are cast unnecessarily. Expressing opinions in different context doesn't mean disqualification. BS Mann asked for modifications of laws. Branding people like this, we don't appreciate. Even judges express views during hearing. That doesn't mean they can't decide
CJI asks Chaudhury if his client wants replacement of BS Mann or constitution of whole committee.
Chaudhary says committee members have expressed views in supporting farm laws.
Bhushan reiterates the stand that the unions do not want to participate in the Committee.