|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centres response to a plea challenging the mandate requiring all six stanzas of Vande Mataram to be sung at public gatherings.
A bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana directed Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to take the paper book and file the Centres response within two weeks. The plea has been filed by singer TM Krishna, who has challenged the Centres mandate on the singing of Vande Mataram at public gatherings. The petition questions the requirement to sing all six stanzas and the penal consequences attached to non-compliance of the new law. Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, submitted that the amended law is a penal statute and therefore the conduct that can attract criminal consequences must be clearly defined and shouldnt be left vague. The submissions led to a heated exchange between Muralidhar and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta after Mehta used the expression Naxalite while responding to Muralidhars submissions on constitutional decision-making. Muralidhar strongly objected to the expression and asked the Solicitor General to withdraw it. Withdraw the expression you used just now. This is going live I strongly object, he said. Mehta refused to withdraw the remark and repeated the expression. I said that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalite wants. And I am not sorry about it, he said Muralidhar objected again after Mehta repeated the word. He is again repeating it. I am now going to register my strongest protest To think is not to be a Naxalite, the ex-Odisha HC Chief Justice said. Justice Joymalya Bagchi intervened during the exchange and stressed the constitutional rights available to individuals. The judge observed that even a person accused of being a terrorist continues to have rights under the Constitution. The Court then turned its focus to the legal issue concerning conscientious objectors and the consequences of refusing to sing Vande Mataram. Justice Bagchi referred to the Supreme Courts judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel, which dealt with the rights of conscientious objectors in relation to the National Anthem. We would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the act of the statute, he said. Justice Bagchi further indicated that a conscientious objector who refuses to recite one or all stanzas of Vande Mataram should not face criminal prosecution merely for that reason. That is, for a conscientious objector, not to recite one or all the stanzas of the national song is not going to subject himself to criminal prosecution, the Court said. Muralidhar had argued that the penal nature of the amended law makes it necessary for the Court to examine precisely what conduct can attract prosecution. The bench directed Mehta to take the paper book and asked the Centre to file its response within two weeks. The Court will consider the matter after receiving the Centres response. (ANI)
|
