Back
SG Tushar Mehta's 'Naxalite' Remark During Vande Mataram Hearing Sparks Heated Exchange in
A courtroom confrontation erupted in the on Tuesday as and clashed over the use of the term “Naxalite” during a hearing on Carnatic musician T M Krishna’s challenge to the Centre’s Vande Mataram directives. The exchange, which unfolded before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, highlighted the raw nerves surrounding the intersection of national symbolism and constitutional freedoms.
The dispute arose when Muralidhar, representing Krishna, questioned the of the amendment to the , which extends to Vande Mataram and of its singing. Responding to Muralidhar’s critique of the law-making process, Mehta remarked that “law-making cannot be according to Naxalites,” triggering an immediate and forceful objection from the senior counsel.
The Trigger: A Single Word
The exchange began during arguments over whether the amendment, which carries a penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment for disrupting the singing of the National Song, was enacted without adequate deliberation. Muralidhar contended that the government had rushed the legislation, relying on an to define the National Song rather than providing statutory clarity. He argued that such a should evolve through public opinion, not a “.”
Mehta, defending the amendment, urged the Court not to issue notice on the petition, warning that doing so would create a “sensation.” When Muralidhar pressed his point that history does not bind constitutional decision-making, the Solicitor General retorted: “Decisions are taken by Parliament as per the Constitution. Not the manner in which Naxalites decide.”
Muralidhar immediately demanded withdrawal of the remark, stating, “This is going live. This was unnecessary. Some decorum is to be observed. We don’t expect this from law officers.” Mehta refused, reiterating, “I can repeat what I said. I said constitution cannot be interpreted according to Naxalites. I don’t know why he is taking it otherwise.”
Court Intervention and Clarifications
Justice Bagchi intervened, describing the tension as “unnecessary” and urging the lawyers to focus on legal issues. The Chief Justice added, “We are only examining the legal issue of . Let us confine to that.” Despite this, Muralidhar insisted on registering his “strongest protest,” calling the remark “playing to the gallery.”
Mehta later clarified that his comment was directed at an ideology—those who disregard the constitutional law-making process—and not at the petitioner or his counsel. “I said that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalite wants. And I am not sorry about it,” he stated.
, present for another matter, remarked, “To think is not to be a Naxalite.” Justice Bagchi further observed, “Even if you label someone as Naxalite, he does not lose the Constitutional rights.” The Court recorded that it had not taken note of the remark, confining itself to the legal issues.
The Substantive Challenge: Vande Mataram and Secularism
Beyond the courtroom drama, the petition raises fundamental questions about and the scope of national symbols. T M Krishna challenges the ’ directions mandating the singing of the full six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at official and mass programmes. The petition argues that the last four stanzas contain invocations to Hindu deities such as Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswati, compelling citizens to participate in a devotional act, thereby violating (), (), and ().
The petition also targets the amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which places Vande Mataram on par with the National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana. Under the amended , intentional prevention of singing or causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in singing the National Song is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both.
Krishna’s plea relies heavily on the ’s landmark judgment in , where the Court protected schoolchildren who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem due to religious beliefs. The petition contends that the criminal penalty under the amended law transforms a historically contested symbol into a “,” distinct from mere protocol.
Legal Implications: Constitutional Boundaries of National Symbols
The case presents a critical test of how far the State can go in enforcing reverence for national symbols without infringing . The has previously held that , and that is constitutionally protected. The amendment, by criminalising obstruction of singing, may be seen as a departure from that principle.
During the hearing, the Bench indicated that it would examine the challenge only to the extent penal consequences are involved. The Chief Justice observed that “if somebody will take pains to read the history, then everybody knows what is national song,” suggesting that the Court may defer to historical consensus on the content of Vande Mataram. However, the Court also noted that a person who believes singing infringes their rights under or 26 cannot be subjected to punishment.
The lack of a of the National Song remains a central vulnerability. The government relies on an from the , which itself lacks . Muralidhar argued that relying on such an instrument to define a penal statute is “most unfortunate” and undermines .
Impact on Legal Practice and
The exchange between the Solicitor General and the senior counsel underscores the delicate balance between and professional decorum. Muralidhar’s strong objection—and his repeated demand for withdrawal—reflects a broader concern among the legal community about the tone and language employed by law officers. The incident may prompt renewed discussions about the of courtroom submissions, especially in high-profile constitutional cases.
Justice Bagchi’s observation that even those labelled “Naxalite” retain constitutional rights serves as a reminder that the applies equally to all. The Court’s decision not to take the remark on record effectively de-escalated the situation, but the episode will likely be cited in future debates on the conduct of law officers.
Conclusion: A Case to Watch
The Vande Mataram case now proceeds on its merits, with the set to examine the of the amendment and the Centre’s directions. The heated exchange, while a momentary distraction, did not alter the substantive legal questions. As the Court indicated, the focus remains on whether penal consequences can attach to the refusal to sing a national song that contains religious elements.
For legal professionals, the case offers a lens through which to examine the tension between and individual rights, the limits of statutory interpretation, and the importance of courtroom civility. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for the enforcement of national symbols and the protection of in India.
