‘Law-making cannot be as per Naxalites’ idea’: Solicitor General’s remarks kick off heated debate in SC

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. File. | Photo Credit: PTI

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s comments during the hearing of a plea challenging the penal protection to Vande Mataram, invited objections in the courtroom on Tuesday (September 22, 2026), as he remarked that “law-making cannot be as per Naxalites’ idea.”

The Supreme Court had taken up a plea filed by renowned Carnatic vocalist and author T.M. Krishna challenging the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 read with the administrative directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in January and a subsequent circular in July.

During the hearing, a debate in the courtroom ensued about how the law-making process, and whether the 2026 amendment and the government circulars “choke the rights of conscientious objectors.”

Interjecting in the discussion, Mr. Mehta said, “let us not bag the National Song in sensationalism”.

“We are not here to create sensations. We are here only to ensure that the law of the land declared under the Bijoe Emmanuel judgment governs the 2026 amendment of the Act,” Justice Bagchi responded to him.

While senior advocate S. Muralidhar criticised the law-making process, saying a definition of the ‘National Song’ required broader debate and consensus, he emphasised that it cannot be thrust upon citizens under threat of penal action. He further pointed out that the Home Ministry’s office memorandum was never gazetted and cited no supporting provision of law.

The Solicitor General remarked that “law-making process is done as per the Constitution, law-making cannot be as per Naxalites’ idea”.

Mr. Mehta’s comment was strongly objected to by Mr. Muralidhar, saying it was offensive and did not behove the office of a law officer of the government. Mr. Muraldihar said such comments were merely playing to the gallery.

“I have never heard a law officer say this. That was an unnecessary use of the expression [Naxalite]. There should be some decorum, and it is not expected of a law officer. I am registering my strong protest. My Lords shall not encourage this sort of behaviour,” Mr. Muralidhar said in a face-off with Mr. Mehta.

At one point, Mr. Mehta explained that all that he wanted to convey was the law-making process was done by the Parliament. “That is the Constitutional way, and that is not what Naxalites want,” he said.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present in the court room also objected to the Solicitor General’s remarks, saying “to think is not to be a Naxalite. For an officer of the court, to have a mind is not to be a Naxalite“.

Justice Bagchi agreed that as a “human being and a citizen, everyone has a constitutional right to protest”.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.