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 a Naxalite would not lose their constitutional rights: “Constitutional courts have the respect and credibility. Why? Because we feel, even alleged terrorists, must have equal rights.”This episode reflects a broader shift in the vocabulary of constitutional advocacy. To be sure, the solicitor general is not a neutral amicus curiae, and the adversarial representation of the Union is integral to the office. However, the solicitor general represents the Union of India, not the ruling party as a political organisation. The Union possesses an enduring interest in constitutional governance, fair adjudication and institutional credibility, which cannot be reduced to the immediate political interests of the government of the day.Also read: ‘Law Making Can’t Be Per Naxalites,’ Tushar Mehta Says at Supreme Court ‘Vande Mataram’ Hearing, Refuses to ApologiseThis is not an isolated occurrence. In an earlier Vande Mataram case, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that patriotism could not be compelled. The solicitor general then intervened and suggested that a person adopting such a position did not deserve to be “entrusted with the writ of this court”. Yet access to constitutional remedies cannot be made contingent upon satisfying the executive’s conception of patriotism. Senior advocate Hegde’s submission drew upon Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which protected students who respectfully stood during the National Anthem but declined to sing due to their religious beliefs. Instead, a recognised constitutional argument was treated as evidence that the person advancing it was undeserving of judicial protection.The same tendency surfaced during the migrant crisis of 2020. As workers confronted hunger, unemployment and arduous journeys home, critics of the state’s response were described as “prophets of doom” spreading “negativity, negativity and negativity”. Descriptors like “armchair intellectuals” and questions regarding whether affluent critics had spent “a penny” assisting displaced migrants effectively displaced the core legal issues before the court. The personal wealth or charitable contributions of these critics had no bearing on whether governments had met their constitutional and statutory obligations concerning food, shelter and transportation.During the farmers’ protests, the agitation was similarly alleged to have been taken over by “vested interests”. When advocate Rahul Mehra, who appeared for the Delhi government, urged the Centre to address the farmers’ concerns, the solicitor general suggested that he appeared to represent those very interests. In the marriage-equality proceedings, the Union characterised the petitioners’ claims as “mere urban elitist views”. “Urban elitist” is not a valid constitutional category, and the court noted the absence of data supporting such a classification.Also read: History Has a Warning About Political Language That Turns Dissent Into DisloyaltyA distinct pattern emerges: constitutional criticism is transformed into negativity; equality claims are dismissed as urban elitism; protesters are deemed to possess vested interests; freedom of conscience is equated with deficient patriotism; and a structured submission about statutory vagueness and democratic consensus is answered by invoking Naxalites. The Bar Council of India Rules require an advocate to uphold a client’s interests fearlessly through “fair and honourable means”. For the Union’s law officers, however, the obligation carries added institutional significance. They speak with the authority of the Union and help shape how the state understands its constitutional responsibilities. Their advocacy should therefore reflect the dignity, fairness and restraint expected from those representing the Union before the country’s highest court.The concern is not the vigour with which the solicitor general defends the executive; rather, it is the substitution of political characterisation for constitutional reasoning. The Union may legitimately argue that a petition is not maintainable, that precedent has been misunderstood or that a restriction satisfies constitutional scrutiny. It should not need to suggest that a petitioner is unpatriotic, an argument elitist, a protest captured by vested interests or a constitutional submission adjacent to extremism. The vocabulary of constitutional adjudication is itself a democratic safeguard. It requires the state to justify coercion through reasons rather than labels. The task of the Union’s law officer is to defend the government before the constitution, not to shield the government from it.Jehosh Paul is a Bengaluru-based lawyer and researcher.