'Naxalites can't make law': Heated exchange between lawyers during Vande Mataram SC hearing
NEW DELHI: A heated exchange broke out between senior advocate S Muralidhar and solicitor general Tushar Mehta in the Supreme Court on Tuesday after Mehta referred to “Naxalites” during arguments in a case concerning Vande Mataram.
Muralidhar, appearing for Carnatic musician T M Krishna, immediately objected to the expression and repeatedly asked Mehta to withdraw it.
“Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites idea,” news agency PTI quoted Mehta saying. His remarks came after Muralidhar questioned the manner in which an amendment relating to the national song had been enacted.
“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,” Muralidhar said.
Mehta maintained that he was responding to Muralidhar’s objection to the decision-making process and said Parliament had enacted the law in accordance with the Constitution.
“I do not want anyone to question...he says he is objecting to the decision-making. It is as per the Constitution,” the solicitor general said.
Muralidhar continued to press for a withdrawal of the remark.
“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 said.
“You cannot challenge the Constitution,” Mehta responded.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the exchange was creating “unnecessary tension and emotion”, while Chief Justice Surya Kant intervened and said the bench was examining only the legal issue of constitutional interpretation.
“Decorum is expected of law officers,” Muralidhar said.
The bench later sought the Centre’s response to Krishna’s petition challenging penal provisions relating to Vande Mataram. It also asked the government to keep in mind a 1986 judgment that protected children from penal action if they did not sing the national anthem.
Muralidhar, however, raised the “Naxalites” remark again after the order was dictated and sought to place his protest on record.
“The learned solicitor used an expression which does not behove a law officer. I have to register my strong protest,” he said.
Justice Bagchi replied, “We have not taken note of the comments. We restrict ourselves to the Constitutional issue.”
Mehta said he was not apologetic and repeated his position.
“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 solicitor general said.
Muralidhar accused Mehta of “playing to the gallery” and again protested.
“Your lordships will not encourage this from a law officer,” he said.
“Save your arguments for the next date,” the CJI told him.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present in court for another matter, then intervened, saying, “To have a mind of one's own is not to be a Naxalite.”
Justice Bagchi said that even if someone was labelled a Naxalite, that person would not lose their constitutional rights .
Mehta clarified that he was not labelling any individual a Naxalite but was referring to an ideology.
After Muralidhar left and the court moved to the next matter, Justice Bagchi returned to the issue while addressing Mehta.
“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,” Justice Bagchi said.
He stressed the importance of constitutional courts and due process, saying even people accused of terrorism were entitled to equal constitutional rights and fair trials.
“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,” Justice Bagchi said.
Mehta reiterated that he was referring to people who did not believe in constitutional decision-making.
“Solicitor, we have not taken note of the comments,” Justice Bagchi said.
“I don't know why he took it personally,” Mehta said.
What was the Vande Mataram case about?The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing Krishna’s petition challenging penal protection given to Vande Mataram.
During the hearing, Muralidhar argued that the amendment had been enacted without adequate public discussion or efforts to build a broader national consensus.
“Ideally, these things should evolve as the building up of a public opinion,” he said, arguing against a “top down approach” to law-making.
The court sought the Centre’s response to the plea and asked the government to consider the 1986 judgment concerning the national anthem while responding to the petition.
Muralidhar, appearing for Carnatic musician T M Krishna, immediately objected to the expression and repeatedly asked Mehta to withdraw it.
“Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites idea,” news agency PTI quoted Mehta saying. His remarks came after Muralidhar questioned the manner in which an amendment relating to the national song had been enacted.
“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,” Muralidhar said.
Mehta maintained that he was responding to Muralidhar’s objection to the decision-making process and said Parliament had enacted the law in accordance with the Constitution.
“I do not want anyone to question...he says he is objecting to the decision-making. It is as per the Constitution,” the solicitor general said.
Muralidhar continued to press for a withdrawal of the remark.
“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 said.
“You cannot challenge the Constitution,” Mehta responded.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the exchange was creating “unnecessary tension and emotion”, while Chief Justice Surya Kant intervened and said the bench was examining only the legal issue of constitutional interpretation.
“Decorum is expected of law officers,” Muralidhar said.
The bench later sought the Centre’s response to Krishna’s petition challenging penal provisions relating to Vande Mataram. It also asked the government to keep in mind a 1986 judgment that protected children from penal action if they did not sing the national anthem.
Muralidhar, however, raised the “Naxalites” remark again after the order was dictated and sought to place his protest on record.
“The learned solicitor used an expression which does not behove a law officer. I have to register my strong protest,” he said.
Justice Bagchi replied, “We have not taken note of the comments. We restrict ourselves to the Constitutional issue.”
Mehta said he was not apologetic and repeated his position.
“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 solicitor general said.
Muralidhar accused Mehta of “playing to the gallery” and again protested.
“Your lordships will not encourage this from a law officer,” he said.
“Save your arguments for the next date,” the CJI told him.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present in court for another matter, then intervened, saying, “To have a mind of one's own is not to be a Naxalite.”
Justice Bagchi said that even if someone was labelled a Naxalite, that person would not lose their constitutional rights .
Mehta clarified that he was not labelling any individual a Naxalite but was referring to an ideology.
After Muralidhar left and the court moved to the next matter, Justice Bagchi returned to the issue while addressing Mehta.
“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,” Justice Bagchi said.
He stressed the importance of constitutional courts and due process, saying even people accused of terrorism were entitled to equal constitutional rights and fair trials.
“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,” Justice Bagchi said.
Mehta reiterated that he was referring to people who did not believe in constitutional decision-making.
“Solicitor, we have not taken note of the comments,” Justice Bagchi said.
“I don't know why he took it personally,” Mehta said.
What was the Vande Mataram case about?The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing Krishna’s petition challenging penal protection given to Vande Mataram.
During the hearing, Muralidhar argued that the amendment had been enacted without adequate public discussion or efforts to build a broader national consensus.
“Ideally, these things should evolve as the building up of a public opinion,” he said, arguing against a “top down approach” to law-making.
The court sought the Centre’s response to the plea and asked the government to consider the 1986 judgment concerning the national anthem while responding to the petition.
Next Story