The Supreme Court on Tuesday was witness to a heated exchange involving Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta and former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate S Muralidhar over the usage of the term "Naxalite" by the former.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which makes intentionally preventing the singing of ‘Vande Mataram’ or disrupting an assembly engaged in its singing punishable with up to three years in jail.

During the hearing, Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, argued that the amendment penalises the prevention of singing of the 'National Song' despite not defining what the song is.

"As long as the government is able to clarify that they will not rely on this kind of some office memorandum to give meaning to a statute and the consequences of imprisonment, punishment and all of that by relying on some office memorandum, let them clarify it. Whereas they were in such a great hurry to introduce this amendment without thinking it through. And this is most unfortunate."

The Court then observed,

"If somebody will take pains to read the history, then everybody knows what is national song."

At this point, SG Mehta urged the Court not to issue notice on the plea, claiming that doing so would created a "sensation".

Muralidhar then argued,

"...history doesn't bind constitutional decision-making...ideally, these things should evolve as a building up of a public opinion...Which is why, my Lord, I am on the larger issue of law-making process itself."

SG Mehta then said,

"Those who did not like objected in Parliament, now they are bringing it here... decisions are taken by Parliament as per the Constitution. Not the manner in which naxalites decide."

Muralidhar strongly objected to the use of the expression "Naxalite".

"I don't want this expression from a Solicitor General of India going on live. My Lord, I do not…I strongly object...let the Solicitor repeat the expression he used for the petitioner."

SG Mehta then said that he used the expression as Muralidhar was challenging the decision-making process as per the Constitution.

"It doesn't behoove a law officer, my Lord… I have never heard a law officer use these kind of expressions," Muralidhar said.

The Court said that it will not take on record the use of the word.

"We are only confining to a legal issue, pure constitutional interpretation..."

However, SG Mehta replied,

"I will repeat what I said...Decision-making is done by Parliament and I said that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalite wants. And I am not sorry about it."

Muralidhar then told the Bench,

"He is again repeating it. I am now going to register my strongest protest...This is playing to the gallery."

The SG then said,

"No, no, I am not labelling anyone individually. My Lord, I am on ideology."

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde then chimed in,

"To think is not to be a Naxalite."

Krishna's petition questions Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (the law protecting national symbols), as amended in 2026. It also challenges the directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs requiring the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram to be sung at specified government, ceremonial and cultural occasions.

The amended law makes it punishable with imprisonment of up to 3 years, fine, or both to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.

The petition argues that the Centre's directions go beyond regulating protocol. He submits that the amendment effectively compel citizens to participate in singing the last four stanzas, which, according to the plea, contain references to Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati.

"In consequence and in effect, the Impugned State Action does not merely regulate national protocol or prescribe a uniform code of conduct for public functions. It compels a ceremony of assent to a symbol whose last four stanzas, Stanzas 3 to 6, are expressly devotional, deity-invoking and non-secular," contended the plea.

The plea challenges the measures under Articles 14 (equality), 15(1) (protection against discrimination), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (life and personal liberty) and 25(1) (freedom of conscience and religion).

It relies on the Supreme Court's 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, where the Court protected schoolchildren who stood respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing it because of their religious beliefs.

Krishna contends that the criminal penalty makes the issue fundamentally different from a mere protocol governing national functions.

"By mandating the rendition of all six stanzas under penal sanction, the State transforms what is unquestionably a contested historical symbol into a compelled orthodoxy," submits the plea.

The petition also argues that the first two stanzas were originally composed as a separate patriotic lyric, while the remaining four were added when the song was incorporated into Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's novel Anandamath.

According to the plea, the later stanzas are both religiously and musically distinct from the first two.

The plea further points to the 1937 decision of the Congress Working Committee to restrict national gatherings to the first two stanzas following objections from Muslim members.

"The measure (2026 directions) is formally neutral but, manifestly, substantively coded: it sends a signal of majoritarian religious alignment and inflicts expressive subordination on believing Muslims and other conscientious objectors," argues the plea.

[Read live account of hearing]