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.
Interjecting in the discussion, Mr. 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. At one point, Mr. Mehta explained that all that he wanted to convey was the law-making process was done by the Parliament.
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.
Mehta said, “let us not bag the National Song in sensationalism”. Muraldihar said such comments were merely playing to the gallery. “That is the Constitutional way, and that is not what Naxalites want,” he said.
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.
“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. Mehta.
Muralidhar said in a face-off with Mr.
