A heated debate unfolded in the Supreme Court after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that “law‑making cannot be as per Naxalites’ idea.”
The comment came during the hearing of a plea challenging penal protection granted to Vande Mataram. Mr Mehta clarified that his intention was to stress that Parliament alone holds the constitutional authority to make laws, unlike the ideological stance of Naxalites.
His statement drew objections from some in the courtroom, sparking a sharp exchange. Mr Mehta reiterated that the constitutional process of law‑making rests with elected representatives, not with groups seeking to undermine democratic institutions.
The remark has since triggered wider debate on the balance between constitutional authority, free expression, and ideological challenges. Legal experts note that the case could set important precedents on how courts interpret the intersection of national symbols and penal protection.
