Dr Muralidhar Objects To Solicitor General's 'Naxalite' Remark During Vande Mataram Hearing

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar raised a strong objection in the Supreme Court to the "Naxalite" remark made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta during the hearing of the Vande Mataram matter.

Muralidhar was appearing for TM Krishna, who challenged the recent amendment to the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act giving 'National Song' the same protection as the 'National Anthem', as well as the Centre's circulars mandating the singing of the six stanzas of Vande Mataram, which include devotional hymns to deities, at official functions.

Before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Muralidhar contended that the amendment was hastily passed without building any national consensus, and without sufficient thought, as the amendment did not even define what the "National Song" was.  "Ideally, these things should evolve as the building up of a public opinion," he submitted, adding that a law-making process following a "top down approach" was not desirable.

At this point, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected to say, "Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites idea."

Taking objection to this comment, Muralidhar said, "The Solicitor must withdraw the expression he just used now. This is going live. I don't want an expression of the Solicitor going live. I strongly object. Let the Solicitor repeat the expression he used for the petitioner."

"I do not want anyone to question...he says he is objecting to the decision-making. It is as per the Constitution," SG said.

"He is side-stepping. Mr. Solicitor, please withdraw your expression," Muralidhar said.

Justice Bagchi then said that this was "unnecessary tension and emotion."

"He started it. Why is the Solicitor using this kind of an expression? This does not behove a law officer. I have never heard a law officer using this expression," Muralidhar replied.

"You cannot challenge the Constitution," SG stated.

The CJI then intervened to say, "We are only examining the legal issue of constitutional interpretation. Let us confine to that."

"But decorum is expected of law officers," Muralidhar said.

The bench at this point dictated an order calling for a counter-affidavit from the Centre on the petition. After the order was dictated, Muralidhar raised the matter again, seeking a retraction from the Solicitor. "The learned Solicitor used an expression which does not behove a law officer. I have to register my strong protest," he said.

"We have not taken note of the comments. We restrict ourselves to the Constitutional issue," Justice Bagchi said.

The Solicitor maintained that he was not apologetic. "I can repeat what I said. He said he is objecting to the way in which the decision-making was done. Decision-making was by the Parliament. I said that is the Constitutional way, and not what the Naxalites want. I am not sorry about it," the SG said.

"He is playing to the gallery. He is unnecessarily repeating it. I am registering my strong protest. Your lordships will not encourage this from a law officer," Muralidhar said.

"Save your arguments for the next date," CJ Sury Kant said.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present for another matter, then stood up to say, "To have a mind of one's own is not to be a Naxalite."

Justice Bagchi said, "Even if you label someone as Naxalite, he does not lose the Constitutional rights." The Solicitor clarifying that he was not labelling anyone, and was only commenting on the ideology.

"To think is not to be a Naxalite," Hegde said.

After Muralidhar left and the next matter was taken, Justice Bagchi told the Solicitor, "I tell you, at least from my personal experience, we have continuously fought against extra-constitutional forces, both as members of the bar and of the bench. Our survival and our justification with the Constitution is to defeat these forces. Why will people come to Courts and not to Kangaroo Courts? There are Kangaroo Courts. Constitutional Courts have the respect and credibility. Why? Because we feel, even alleged terrorists, must have equal rights. We have tried terrorists as per the law. Even those who shot down people in public were given fair trial"

"That was my point. There are individuals who do not believe in constitutional decision-making," SG said.

"Mr Solicitor, we have not taken note of the comments," Justice Bagchi said.

"I don't know why he took it personally," SG replied.