A heated exchange took place in the Supreme Court on Tuesday during the hearing of woke leftist Carnatic musician TM Krishna’s challenge to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act and the Centre’s directions on singing the complete six stanzas of Vande Mataram, as reported in LiveLaw.
Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, strongly objected after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that law-making “cannot be as per the Naxalites idea”.
Muralidhar had been arguing that the amendment was passed without sufficient deliberation or national consensus. He submitted that such matters should ideally evolve through public opinion rather than through a “top down approach” to law-making.
“Ideally, these things should evolve as the building up of a public opinion,” he submitted.
At this stage, the Solicitor General intervened.
“Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites idea.”
Muralidhar immediately objected to the remark and demanded that Mehta withdraw it.
“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.”
Mehta maintained that he was referring to the constitutional process of law-making.
“I do not want anyone to question…he says he is objecting to the decision-making. It is as per the Constitution,” SG said.
Muralidhar responded: “He is side-stepping. Mr. Solicitor, please withdraw your expression.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi then intervened, describing the exchange as “unnecessary tension and emotion.”
Muralidhar, however, continued his objection.
“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.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant then intervened and sought to bring the arguments back to the constitutional questions before the bench.
“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 subsequently dictated an order seeking a counter-affidavit from the Centre on Krishna’s petition.
Mehta Refuses To Apologise
After the order was dictated, Muralidhar raised the issue again and sought a retraction from the Solicitor General.
“The learned Solicitor used an expression which does not behove a law officer. I have to register my strong protest,” he said.
Justice Bagchi responded: “We have not taken note of the comments. We restrict ourselves to the Constitutional issue.”
Mehta, however, stood by his statement and refused to apologise.
“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.
Muralidhar again objected.
“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,” he said.
“Save your arguments for the next date,” CJI Surya Kant said.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present in court for another matter, then intervened.
“To have a mind of one’s own is not to be a Naxalite.”
Justice Bagchi observed: “Even if you label someone as Naxalite, he does not lose the Constitutional rights.”
The Solicitor General clarified that he was not labelling anyone and was referring to an ideology.
“To think is not to be a Naxalite,” Hegde added.
Justice Bagchi Defends Constitutional Process
After Muralidhar left and the Court proceeded to the next matter, Justice Bagchi continued the discussion with the Solicitor General.
“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.
What Is The Vande Mataram Challenge?
Krishna has challenged the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which extends statutory protection to the National Song, as well as Ministry of Home Affairs directions mandating the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at specified official functions.
His counsel argued that the later stanzas contain references to Hindu deities and that compelling their rendition raises questions concerning freedom of conscience and religion.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the petition, indicated that it would not decide whether the National Song should comprise two or six stanzas. Instead, it said the Court would examine whether a person who declines to sing it on grounds of conscience or religion can face criminal consequences. The bench also referred to the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment concerning conscientious objection to singing the National Anthem.
The Centre has been asked to respond to the petition.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
