Subscribe
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) on Tuesday, September 22, condemned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s reference to “Naxalites” during the Supreme Court hearing of Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna’s challenge to the amended law on the National Song.
The PUCL objected to Mehta’s remark while responding to Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, who was arguing for Krishna in the Supreme Court. Muralidhar had argued that the amendment was passed hastily and without sufficient consideration. “Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites’ idea,” Mehta said.
Muralidhar objected to the remark and asked the Solicitor General to withdraw it. Mehta refused to do so. Muralidhar said, “He should withdraw this. This is going live. Let him repeat! This was unnecessary. Some decorum is to be observed. We don’t expect this from law officers.”
Mehta responded, “I can repeat what I said. One has to go by law. I am not sorry about what I said.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also commented on the exchange. “Even if you label someone as Naxalite, he does not lose the Constitutional rights,” Justice Bagchi said.
The PUCL said the Solicitor General, as the second-highest law officer of the Union government, was expected to maintain decorum in court and make arguments based on constitutional principles rather than “calling names and labelling persons as one or the other”.
“Such arguments are most unbecoming of an officer of the court and it lowers the standard of arguments and the dignity of the highest court of this country,” the organisation said in its statement.
Mehta later said he was referring to an ideology and was not labelling any individual. “My intention was that legislative decision-making is constitutional. It cannot be done by arms etc.,” Mehta said.
The PUCL said the remark was made during the hearing of Krishna’s petition challenging the amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The amendment gives the National Song, Vande Mataram, the same statutory protection as the National Anthem.
Krishna has also challenged two Ministry of Home Affairs orders mandating the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at specified official, ceremonial and cultural occasions.
The PUCL said it had “strong objection” to the Solicitor General’s remark and alleged that the Union government had increasingly characterised opinions contrary to its position as “Naxalite”.
The organisation said this was being done irrespective of whether the view was a dissenting opinion, critical remark or opposing stand, and described it as an attempt to “delegitimise both the opinion as well as the person putting forward the opinion”.
The statement also defended Krishna’s public and intellectual work.
“TM Krishna, who the Solicitor General seeks to delegitimise, is an eminent exponent of Carnatic music who has recently authored a well-received book on India’s national symbols titled, ‘We the people of India’,” the PUCL said.
It noted that the book documents the history of India’s national flag, National Song, National Anthem and national emblem.
The organisation also referred to Krishna’s writings collected in The Spirit of Inquiry: Notes of Dissent. Citing the book’s foreword by Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the PUCL said Krishna had been described as “one of the most incandescent and luminous artistic voices of our generation”.
The PUCL said that characterising Krishna as a Naxalite was “nothing other than an attempt to browbeat and silence constitutional speech”. The organisation further said the Solicitor General should not seek to shut down opinions critical of the Union government through name-calling.
“To do so by the strategy of name calling does not behove his high constitutional office and is actually against core constitutional principles of free speech, dissent and democracy,” it said.
The PUCL said Krishna’s decision to approach the Supreme Court demonstrated his reliance on the Constitution and argued that the incident instead raised questions about the commitment of constitutional institutions to protecting such rights.
“What this incident lays bare is not TM Krishna’s allegiance or commitment to the Indian Constitution, for it is because of his faith in it that he has approached the Supreme Court of India. What is being tested is the commitment of the Solicitor General of India and the SC itself, to the Constitution,” the statement said.
The statement was signed by PUCL president Kavita Srivastava and general secretary V Suresh.
The Supreme Court has sought the Union government’s response to Krishna’s petition challenging the amended law and the directions concerning the singing of Vande Mataram.
