PUCL Condemns ‘Naxalite’ Remark During T.M. Krishna’s Vande Mataram Case, Calls It an Attack on Constitutional Dissent
Rights body says disagreement with government cannot be delegitimised through labels
ಸಾಂವಿಧಾನಿಕ ಭಿನ್ನಮತವನ್ನು ‘ನಕ್ಸಲೈಟ್ ಚಿಂತನೆ’ ಎಂದು ತಳ್ಳಿಹಾಕಬಹುದೇ? ಸಾಲಿಸಿಟರ್ ಜನರಲ್ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗೆ PUCL ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ
New Delhi: The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has condemned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s use of the term “Naxalite” during Supreme Court proceedings on Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna’s challenge to the amended national honour law and government directions concerning Vande Mataram, saying constitutional disagreements must be answered through law rather than labels.
The controversy arose during the September 22 hearing when senior advocate S. Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, questioned whether the 2026 amendment had been enacted without adequate deliberation or broader consensus. Mehta responded that law-making takes place under the Constitution and “cannot be as per Naxalites’ idea.” Muralidhar objected and sought withdrawal of the expression, but Mehta stood by his remark. Mehta subsequently clarified that he was referring to an ideology, not labelling Krishna personally.
‘Dissent Does Not Erase Constitutional Rights’
The exchange occurred while the court was considering Krishna’s challenge to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act and government directions concerning rendition of Vande Mataram. Krishna’s petition raises questions about freedom of conscience and religion, particularly over the rendition of all six stanzas. The Supreme Court sought the Centre’s response and indicated that conscientious or religious objectors should not face penal consequences merely for declining to sing.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also stressed that even someone labelled a Naxalite does not lose constitutional rights, while emphasising the importance of due process and constitutional courts.
PUCL President Kavita Srivastava and General Secretary V. Suresh said the Solicitor General, as a senior law officer, was expected to maintain courtroom decorum and contest arguments on constitutional principles.
“Name-calling does not behove such a high office and is contrary to the constitutional principles of free speech, dissent and democracy,” PUCL said.
‘Attempt to Browbeat Constitutional Speech’
PUCL alleged that terms such as “Naxalite” are increasingly being deployed to delegitimise dissenting or critical opinions. It described such rhetoric as an attempt to “browbeat and silence constitutional speech.”
Defending Krishna’s democratic right to approach the judiciary, PUCL pointed to his work as a Carnatic musician, writer and public intellectual, including his books We the People of India, dealing with India’s national symbols, and The Spirit of Inquiry: Notes of Dissent.
“What is being tested is not T.M. Krishna’s commitment to the Constitution,” PUCL said, arguing that his decision to approach the Supreme Court itself reflected reliance on constitutional remedies.
The civil liberties organisation expressed solidarity with Krishna and Muralidhar, while urging citizens to defend the democratic space for disagreement.
The broader constitutional question now before the court is significant: Can the State prescribe respect for a national symbol while simultaneously safeguarding an individual’s freedom of conscience and constitutional right to dissent?
“Media Updates: +91-93531 21474 [WhatsApp] | indianowme@gmail.com”
