Senior Lawyer Muralidhar Objects To 'Naxalite' Remark By SG During Vande Mataram Hearing In SC, Demands Withdrawal

Senior advocate S Muralidhar on Tuesday strongly objected to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's reference to "Naxalites" in the Supreme Court during a hearing related to the national song Vande Mataram and demanded immediate withdrawal of the expression.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought its response on the plea by Carnatic musician T M Krishna, represented by Muralidhar, challenging the penal protection to Vande Mataram.

It also asked the government to keep in mind the 1986 judgement which protected children from penal actions if they do not sing the national anthem.

Muralidhar was making submissions in the case when the exchange took place. He argued that the amendment in the law has been enacted without sufficient public discussion or the building of a broader national consensus.

"Ideally, these things should evolve as the building up of a public opinion," he said, adding that a law-making process following a "top down approach" was not desirable.

"Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites idea," the solicitor general said while intervening in the matter.

Muralidhar immediately objected to the remark and sought its withdrawal.

"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," he said.

"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.

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

The top law officer said he was responding to Muralidhar's objection to the manner in which the decision had been taken, saying the law was enacted by Parliament in accordance with the Constitution.

Muralidhar, however, reiterated his demand.

Justice Bagchi said that the exchange was creating "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 said.

"You cannot challenge the Constitution," the law officer responded.

The CJI intervened and said that the bench was only examining the legal issue of constitutional interpretation.

"Decorum is expected of law officers," Murlaidhar said.

The bench subsequently dictated an order seeking a reply from the Centre on the petition.

After the order was dictated, Muralidhar again raised the issue and said he wanted 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 responded, "We have not taken note of the comments. We restrict ourselves to the Constitutional issue." The solicitor general maintained that 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 the law officer of "playing to the gallery" and reiterated his protest.

"Your lordships will not encourage this from a law officer," he said.

"Save your arguments for the next date," the CJI told Murlaidhar.

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." Even if you label someone as Naxalite, he does not lose the constitutional rights, Justice Bagchi said.

The solicitor general said that he was not labelling any individual as a Naxalite but was referring to an ideology.

After Muralidhar left and the court proceeded to the next matter, Justice Bagchi returned to the issue while addressing 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," Justice Bagchi said.

Justice Bagchi emphasised the importance of constitutional courts and due process, saying that 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.

The solicitor general reiterated that his point was that there were individuals 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.