![\"'Naxalites](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-134412395,imgsize-133706,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/sc.jpg\" "\\"SC")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: A heated exchange broke out between senior advocate S Muralidhar and solicitor general Tushar Mehta in the Supreme Court on Tuesday after Mehta referred to \u201cNaxalites\u201d during arguments in a case concerning Vande Mataram.Muralidhar, appearing for Carnatic musician T M Krishna, immediately objected to the expression and repeatedly asked Mehta to withdraw it.\u201cLaw-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites<\/a> idea,\u201d news agency PTI quoted Mehta saying. His remarks came after Muralidhar questioned the manner in which an amendment relating to the national song had been enacted.\u201cThe 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,\u201d Muralidhar said.Mehta maintained that he was responding to Muralidhar\u2019s objection to the decision-making process and said Parliament had enacted the law in accordance with the Constitution.\u201cI do not want anyone to question…he says he is objecting to the decision-making. It is as per the Constitution,\u201d the solicitor general said.Muralidhar continued to press for a withdrawal of the remark.\u201cHe 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,\u201d Muralidhar said.\u201cYou cannot challenge the Constitution,\u201d Mehta responded.Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the exchange was creating \u201cunnecessary tension and emotion\u201d, while Chief Justice Surya Kant intervened and said the bench was examining only the legal issue of constitutional interpretation.\u201cDecorum is expected of law officers,\u201d Muralidhar said.The bench later sought the Centre\u2019s response to Krishna\u2019s petition challenging penal provisions relating to Vande Mataram. It also asked the government to keep in mind a 1986 judgment that protected children from penal action if they did not sing the national anthem.Muralidhar, however, raised the \u201cNaxalites\u201d remark again after the order was dictated and sought to place his protest on record.\u201cThe learned solicitor used an expression which does not behove a law officer. I have to register my strong protest,\u201d he said.Justice Bagchi replied, \u201cWe have not taken note of the comments. We restrict ourselves to the Constitutional issue.\u201dMehta said he was not apologetic and repeated his position.\u201cI can repeat what I said. He said he is objecting to the way in which the decision-making was done. Decision-making was by the Parliament. I said that is the constitutional way, and not what the Naxalites want. I am not sorry about it,\u201d the solicitor general said.Muralidhar accused Mehta of \u201cplaying to the gallery\u201d and again protested.\u201cYour lordships will not encourage this from a law officer,\u201d he said.\u201cSave your arguments for the next date,\u201d the CJI told him.Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present in court for another matter, then intervened, saying, \u201cTo have a mind of one’s own is not to be a Naxalite.\u201dJustice Bagchi said that even if someone was labelled a Naxalite, that person would not lose their constitutional rights.Mehta clarified that he was not labelling any individual a Naxalite but was referring to an ideology.After Muralidhar left and the court moved to the next matter, Justice Bagchi returned to the issue while addressing Mehta.\u201cI tell you, at least from my personal experience, we have continuously fought against extra-constitutional forces, both as members of the bar and of the bench. Our survival and our justification with the Constitution is to defeat these forces,\u201d Justice Bagchi said.He stressed the importance of constitutional courts and due process, saying even people accused of terrorism were entitled to equal constitutional rights and fair trials.\u201cWhy will people come to courts and not to kangaroo courts? There are kangaroo courts. Constitutional courts have the respect and credibility. Why? Because we feel, even alleged terrorists, must have equal rights,\u201d Justice Bagchi said.Mehta reiterated that he was referring to people who did not believe in constitutional decision-making.\u201cSolicitor, we have not taken note of the comments,\u201d Justice Bagchi said.<\/p>\n Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\n