A hearing in the Supreme Court over the legal protection given to Vande Mataram saw a heated exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate S. Muralidhar on Tuesday.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist and author T.M. Krishna, who has challenged the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The amendment extends criminal protection to the National Song, Vande Mataram, similar to the protection already given to the National Anthem.
Under the amended law, intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or disturbing an assembly engaged in singing them, can attract imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both.
Krishna has also challenged government directions requiring the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram to be sung at certain official, ceremonial and cultural events. His petition raises questions about freedom of expression, religious freedom and the constitutional limits of imposing penalties in connection with the National Song.
During the hearing, Muralidhar questioned the manner in which the amendment was passed and raised concerns about the definition of the National Song and the possible use of criminal penalties. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to constitutional decision-making and said that the approach he was describing was not what “Naxalites” want. Mehta later clarified that he was referring to an ideology and was not personally labelling Muralidhar or anyone else as a Naxalite.
Muralidhar strongly objected to the remark and said that such language was inappropriate for a law officer. He asked the Solicitor General to withdraw the expression and registered his protest when Mehta repeated the comment.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde also intervened, saying that having an independent opinion or questioning the decision-making process does not make someone a Naxalite. Justice Joymalya Bagchi subsequently stressed that constitutional rights do not disappear merely because someone is given such a label.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, indicated that the court would focus on the constitutional and legal questions before it rather than the exchange between the lawyers. The court did not take note of the remarks in its proceedings.
The Supreme Court also indicated that a person who chooses not to sing Vande Mataram for religious or conscientious reasons should not face criminal consequences, referring to the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment concerning the right of students who respectfully declined to sing the National Anthem. The court has asked the Centre to respond to Krishna’s petition within two weeks.
The case will now continue with the government’s response. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could clarify the extent of the criminal protections introduced for Vande Mataram and how they interact with constitutional freedoms such as freedom of expression and religious liberty.