On 16th December, the Supreme Court said Carnatic musician TM Krishna should not be recognised and restrained from claiming to be the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award. The ruling was decided by a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, one day after the award was conferred on him by the Madras Music Academy in Chennai on 15th December.
The development transpired after V Shrinivasan, the grandson of Bharat Ratna MS Subbulakshmi, filed a petition challenging the Madras High Court’s division bench’s interim order that permitted the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award, sponsored by the Hindu Group and selected by The Music Academy, to be presented to TM Krishna. The Supreme Court sent notice in response to the plea against the Madras High Court verdict allowing TM Krishna to receive the honor.
The bench pronounced, “The court is mindful of the respect and honour that MS Subbulakshmi commands across all spectrum. She is one of the most distinguished singer and although she passed away in December 2004, her melodious voice continues to bring great joy to all her fans. At the same time, while the write-ups and the comments made by defendent no. 4 (TM Krishna) are his way of coveying his respect for the singer, the plaintiff certainly feels that the words used by him, to the say the least, are not in good taste.”
It further highlighted, “As the award has been already awarded on 15.12.2024, we deem it appropriate to say that defendant no.4 (TM Krishna) should not be recognised as a recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award and is also restrained from projecting himself as a recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award.”
Madras High Court’s initial decision and later stay
V Srinivasan had already petitioned the Madras High Court to prevent the Academy from giving TM Krishna the Sangita Kalanidhi Award and from presenting any awards in MS Subbulakshmi’s name at all. His family, he asserted, did not want the award given to anyone since that would be “against the spirit” of her wishes. Given that TM Krishna had been using social media and his articles to make “vile, vituperative, and scandalous attacks” on MS Subbulakshmi and to defame the late singer’s name, he pointed out, bestowing such an honor on him was even more “questionable.”
A single high court judge, previously, had issued a verdict barring the Carnatic musician from receiving the award in her name. Justice G Jayachandran expressed, “The best way to honour a departed soul is to honour and respect her wish and not to disrespect her. If any person is really having reverence and regard to MS Subbulakshmi, after knowing her desire and mandate, should not continue to give awards in her name.”
The ruling was later overturned by a division bench of the court. “From the plain reading of the contents of the Will, the testatrix did not want anybody to form or create or make any trust, foundation, or memorial of any kind including erecting of any statue or bust in her name or in her memory,” Justices S S Sundar and P Dhanabal had declared.
The bench also disregarded the notion that MS Subbulakshmi sought to prohibit the conferring of honors in her name. “Had it been the intention of the testatrix that no award shall be conferred on anyone in her name, that could have been expressed in simple language. An interpretation contrary to the plain language of the instrument is not permissible in law.” The court stated that she embraced several awards and works that had been established in her honor during her lifetime, and that these practices were uncontested. It further emphasized that other organizations that founded similar awards in her name had not been mentioned by the plaintiff, her grandson.
“This court is unable to reject the contention or stand taken by appellants that the suit and the interlocutory application is not for a bona fide cause, but with an oblique motive against TM Krishna,” the court conveyed allowing the Music Academy to proceed with the award. A few minutes later, the Supreme Court was informed of V Srinivasan’s appeal contesting the decision. The award ceremony meanwhile took place as the top court declined to postpone the division bench’s judgment or consider the case for urgent hearing.
Supreme Court’s observations
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman, who appeared before the top court on behalf of V Srinivasan, reaffirmed the late singer’s family’s concerns that someone who made derogatory comments about MS Subbulakshmi was receiving an award in her name. “Award was conferred and it was greatly publicised. He (TM Krishna) is a person who made misogynistic comment against her.”
He stressed that the case has not become infructuous, citing the Chief Justice of India’s oral statement from 13th December, when the matter was brought up for an urgent hearing, that the court could direct the award to be rescinded if the challenge is deemed meritorious. He asked whether it was proper to give the award in MS Subbulakshmi’s name to someone who had made a number of “nauseating” and “misogynistic” remarks about her.
He voiced that it would be against constitutional morals to give an award in Mahatma Gandhi’s name to someone who criticizes him, drawing parallels between the two situations. According to his allegations, TM Krishna referred to MS Subbulakshmi in articles published in “The Caravan” and “The Wire” as “the greatest hoax of the twentieth century,” “diva,” “saintly Barbie doll,” and other such terms.
He underlined that at first, a single high court bench issued an interim order to prevent the award from being granted. The Music Academy filed an appeal against the order declining to reject the plaint, not against the interim injunction order. Therefore, N Venkataraman contended that the division bench’s decision to revoke the temporary injunction in Music Academy’s appeal was a “fatal error of law.”
Additionally, he maintained that the injunction against the Music Academy remained in effect and that the temporary injunction was only lifted against the Hindu Group. This is due to the fact that only the Hindu group contested the temporary order.
On the other hand, instead of providing an explanation for his statement before the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court bench verbally reprimanded during the hearing that TM Krishna “added fuel to fire.” The music academy was represented by Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, who argued that the award was given following the division bench of the high court’s revocation of the previous injunction order pronounced by a single judge.
Addressing CS Vaidyanathan, the bench stated at this point that “there was an injunction against you.” He claimed that the injunction order had been revoked, but Justice Roy responded that “it was set aside not vis-a-vis you.” At this point, Justice Bhatti noted that each party must file a separate appeal in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, and the Music Academy is not eligible for relief from the vacation of the interim decision since it has not contested the injunction order.
The court mentioned that the case dealt with a delicate matter. Speaking to TM Krishna’s attorney, the bench noted that he had the opportunity to present his submissions before the high court to pacify the matter. It slammed, “Mr Parthasarathy (counsel for TM Krishna), I have gone through articles. This is a very sensitive and important issue. You could have explained your stand before the high court. You did not clarify and then you added fuel to fire and said that she is a barbie doll etc.”
“I did not describe her as a ‘greatest hoax’ (as alleged). I said many called her that and the article wanted to burst that myth,” responded Suhrith Parthasarathy. The court eventually issued an interim order to prevent TM Krishna from being projected as the award recipient in MS Subbulakshmi’s name.
