Listen to this article:

During the Supreme Court’s hearing of T.M. Krishna’s challenge to the amended legal framework governing Vande Mataram, senior advocate S. Muralidhar questioned whether a penal statute could leave the National Song undefined and rely instead upon an executive memorandum to supply its content. He further contended that history alone cannot dictate constitutional decision-making and that questions concerning national symbols ought to evolve through democratic consensus.

In response, the solicitor general asserted that decisions are taken by parliament in accordance with the constitution, and “not the manner in which Naxalites decide”. When senior advocate Muralidhar objected that such an expression was unbecoming of a law officer, the solicitor general repeated the remark and stated that he was “not sorry”. He subsequently clarified that he was referring to an ideology rather than labelling any individual. That clarification, however, does not resolve the institutional problem.

Nobody before the court had defended violence or extra-constitutional law-making. Senior advocate Muralidhar was merely advancing a conventional argument concerning statutory vagueness, democratic consensus and penal consequences. Invoking Naxalism did not answer that legal argument; its effect was to position a constitutional submission within the rhetorical vicinity of extremism.

After senior advocate Muralidhar left and the court moved to the next matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi returned to the issue. He observed that even a person labelled........

© The Wire