Mehta, Muralidhar clash in Supreme Court over 'Naxalite' remark

A heated exchange took place in the Supreme Court between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate S Muralidhar during a hearing on Vande Mataram. Muralidhar strongly objected after Mehta said law-making cannot be as per 'Naxalites' idea'. The Court said it would not take the word on record and was confining itself to constitutional interpretation. The Bench led by CJI Surya Kant was hearing vocalist TM Krishna's challenge to a 2026 amendment to the National Honour Act.

Written by AI from Bar & Bench (courts) · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 22 Sept 2026, 1:28 pm IST

Source

Bar & Bench (courts) · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#vande mataram#tm krishna#tushar mehta#national honour act

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard TM Krishna's plea against the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. — Attributed to the source's hearing report; names and bench composition appear in source.
SG Tushar Mehta said law-making cannot be as per 'Naxalites' idea', and Senior Advocate S Muralidhar objected strongly. — Direct quotes attributed to both counsel in the source's live account.
The Court said it would not take the word on record and was confining itself to a legal issue. — Quoted oral observation in source; not a written order.
The amended law provides up to three years' imprisonment, fine or both for intentionally preventing singing of the National Anthem or National Song. — Figure appears in source as description of the 2026 amendment.
The plea says stanzas 3 to 6 are devotional and invoke Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, and cites Bijoe Emmanuel (1986). — Attributed to the petition as reported; petitioner's contention, not a court finding.

Written by AI from Bar & Bench (courts) · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This was less a legal skirmish than the politics of Vande Mataram walking into a courtroom. The invocation of "the Naxalites' idea" — and crucially, the refusal to withdraw it — mirrors a familiar political frame in which questioning national symbols is recast as hostile ideology. The counter-argument, that those who lost the debate in Parliament are now relitigating it in court, is itself a standard majoritarian-government riposte. The Bench declining to record the word and insisting on "pure constitutional interpretation" was a deliberate signal that it does not want the case fought on political terrain.

Framing the dispute as patriotism versus anti-nationalism is politically advantageous to the government, while the petitioner's side is working to keep it about the quality of the law-making process.
The "objected in Parliament, now bringing it here" line reflects a government political line that elevates legislative majority over judicial review.
Repeating the term and saying he was not sorry played, in Muralidhar's words of protest, to the gallery — a reminder that in the age of livestreamed hearings, courtroom arguments double as political messaging.
A clash between a former High Court Chief Justice and the Solicitor General of India is itself a marker of widening friction between sections of the legal fraternity and the executive.
The plea that notice would create a "sensation" suggests the Centre sees this litigation as politically sensitive rather than merely technical.

What to watch — Watch whether the Court issues notice, whether the Centre clarifies the six-stanza directions, and whether opposition parties and cultural voices seize on the "Naxalite" remark as a political talking point.

The story does not establish the outcome of the case, whether notice was ultimately issued, or any political party's reaction — it records only a verbal exchange at one hearing.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna has challenged in the Supreme Court a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which makes intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or disturbing an assembly engaged in such singing, punishable with up to three years in jail. He also challenges Ministry of Home Affairs directions requiring the complete six-stanza version of 'Vande Mataram' at specified government, ceremonial and cultural occasions. On September 22, 2026, while a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's remark that "law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites' idea" drew a strong protest from Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna. The Court said it would not take the word on record and was confining itself to pure constitutional interpretation.

Key facts

The 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 makes intentionally preventing singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or disturbing such an assembly, punishable with up to 3 years' jail, fine, or both.
The plea specifically questions Section 3 of the 1971 Act as amended in 2026, plus MHA directions mandating the full six-stanza 'Vande Mataram'.
The Bench comprised CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana; the hearing was reported on 22 September 2026.
Muralidhar argued the amendment penalises prevention of singing the 'National Song' without defining what that song is, and objected to meaning being supplied by an office memorandum.
SG Mehta urged the Court not to issue notice, saying it would create a 'sensation', and said decision-making is by Parliament, 'not what the Naxalite wants... I am not sorry about it.'
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde remarked, 'To think is not to be a Naxalite.'
The petition invokes Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1), and relies on Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986), which protected schoolchildren who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem.
The plea says stanzas 3 to 6 are devotional and deity-invoking, referring to Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, and notes the Congress Working Committee's 1937 decision to restrict national gatherings to the first two stanzas after objections from Muslim members.

Timeline

1937Congress Working Committee decides to restrict singing at national gatherings to the first two stanzas of 'Vande Mataram' after objections from Muslim members.
1971Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act enacted to protect national symbols.
1986Supreme Court decides Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, protecting schoolchildren who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem.
2026Parliament amends the National Honour Act; MHA issues directions requiring the complete six-stanza 'Vande Mataram' at specified occasions.
22 September 2026 (report)Supreme Court Bench led by CJI Surya Kant hears TM Krishna's plea; SG Mehta's 'Naxalite' remark triggers protest by Senior Advocate S Muralidhar.

Who has a stake

TM Krishna, Carnatic vocalist and petitioner — Contends the penal mandate compels a ceremony of assent to a contested symbol, violating his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1).
Supreme Court Bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, V Mohana) — Must decide whether to issue notice and rule on the constitutional validity of the amendment; sought to confine proceedings to pure constitutional interpretation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta / Union Government — Defends Parliament's law-making competence and the MHA directions; opposed issuance of notice, saying it would create a 'sensation'.
Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court — Petitioner's counsel; registered 'strongest protest' against a law officer labelling the challenge as a 'Naxalite' idea.
Ministry of Home Affairs — Author of the directions mandating the six-stanza rendition at government, ceremonial and cultural occasions, now under challenge.
Religious minorities and conscientious objectors — The plea says the measure signals majoritarian religious alignment and inflicts 'expressive subordination' on believing Muslims and other objectors.

Why it matters

The case tests where national-symbol protocol ends and compelled speech begins, now backed by up to three years' imprisonment. It revives the Bijoe Emmanuel principle that respectful silence can be constitutionally protected, and asks whether devotional stanzas can be mandated in a secular state. The courtroom clash also raises the question of the decorum expected of a law officer of the Union when opposing a constitutional challenge.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 protects national symbols; its Section 3, as amended in 2026, is under challenge.
2026 amendment: intentionally preventing singing of National Anthem or National Song, or disturbing such an assembly — up to 3 years' jail, fine, or both.
Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986): Supreme Court protected schoolchildren who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem.
Articles invoked in the plea: 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1).
'Vande Mataram' has six stanzas; the later four were added when incorporated into Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's novel Anandamath.
Hearing Bench: CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana; petitioner TM Krishna represented by Senior Advocate S Muralidhar.

Mains framing

The challenge to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act raises three linked constitutional questions. First, vagueness and legality: the petitioner argues that a provision carrying up to three years' imprisonment penalises obstruction of singing the 'National Song' without statutorily defining the song, and that its content cannot be supplied by an executive office memorandum. Second, compelled speech and freedom of conscience: by requiring all six stanzas, of which stanzas 3 to 6 are described in the plea as devotional and deity-invoking (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati), the measure allegedly converts protocol into a "compelled orthodoxy", implicating Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1) and the reasoning of Bijoe Emmanuel (1986). Third, substantive neutrality: the plea claims a formally neutral rule can be "substantively coded", signalling majoritarian alignment — echoing the Congress Working Committee's 1937 compromise limiting public rendition to the first two stanzas. Against this, the government's position is that law-making is Parliament's constitutional preserve and that legislative defeats should not be relitigated in court. A way forward lies in the Court testing the provision for definitional clarity, proportionality of criminal sanction, and whether respectful non-participation is protected, while the executive clarifies the legal status of its directions. The exchange over the term 'Naxalite' also underlines the need for restraint by law officers in live-streamed constitutional hearings.

Key terms

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: Central law protecting national symbols; its Section 3, as amended in 2026, is the provision under challenge.
Solicitor General: Law officer of the Union who represents the government in courts; here Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre.
Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986): Supreme Court ruling protecting students who stood respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing it on religious grounds.
Anandamath: Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's novel into which 'Vande Mataram' was incorporated, when the later four stanzas were added, per the plea.
Office memorandum: An executive communication; the petitioner objects to such an instrument being used to give meaning to a penal statute.
Article 25(1): Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, invoked in the petition.

Practice questions

Does mandating the rendition of all six stanzas of 'Vande Mataram' under penal sanction amount to compelled speech? Examine in light of Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986) and Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1).
Can a penal provision derive the meaning of its key term from an executive office memorandum? Discuss with reference to the principle of legality and vagueness in criminal law.
Critically examine the standards of decorum expected of law officers of the Union in constitutional litigation, particularly in live-streamed proceedings.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyUP teen alleges gangrape by truck driver, helper after lift →

← All stories