Senior Advocate Dr S. Muralidhar on Tuesday strongly objected to a remark made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the Supreme Court hearing on a plea challenging the amended law concerning the National Song, Vande Mataram.
Muralidhar, appearing for Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna, was making submissions on the manner in which the amendment had been enacted and argued that matters concerning national symbols should evolve through public consensus rather than a “top-down” legislative approach. He submitted: “I’m on a larger issue of lawmaking.” At this stage, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected:
“
“Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites’ idea.”
Muralidhar immediately objected to the expression and asked the Solicitor General to 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 responded that he was referring to Muralidhar’s objection to the decision-making process and maintained that law-making by Parliament was the constitutional method.
“
“I do not want anyone to question… he says he is objecting to the decision-making. It is as per the Constitution.”
Muralidhar, however, reiterated: “He is side-stepping. Mr. Solicitor, please withdraw your expression.” Justice Joymalya Bagchi then observed that the exchange was creating “unnecessary tension and emotion”. Muralidhar responded:
“
“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…with the greatest respect unnecessarily he used an expression. some decorum that we have to observe. We do not expect this of law officers. “
The Solicitor General maintained that: “He said, I am objecting to the way in which decision-making is… Decision-making under our Constitution… I said, that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalites want. And I am not sorry about that.”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present in court in another matter, also intervened during the exchange and said: “as an officer of this court, to have a mind not to be a Naxalite.” S Muralidhar registered his strongest objection, and remarked: “To think is not to be a Naxalite.”
Justice Bagchi observed that even if a person were labelled a Naxalite, that would not deprive the person of constitutional rights. Mehta clarified that he was not labelling any individual and was referring to an ideology. The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, then intervened and said:
“
“You keep your arguments for the next date of hearing…We are only examining the legal issue of constitutional interpretation. Let us confine to that.”
Muralidhar nevertheless reiterated that decorum was expected from law officers.
After the Bench dictated its order seeking the Centre’s response in the matter, Muralidhar raised the issue again and said he wanted to register his protest.
Justice Bagchi said that the Court had not taken note of the comments and would restrict itself to the constitutional issue. The Solicitor General maintained that he was not apologetic for his remark and reiterated that his reference was to those who, according to him, did not believe in constitutional decision-making.