New Delhi, Dec 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court, in an interim order on Monday, restrained renowned Carnatic musician TM Krishna from being recognized as the recipient of the prestigious Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award conferred by the Music Academy in Chennai on December 15.
The Court further directed Krishna not to project himself as the award recipient pending a resolution of the legal challenge.
A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the order while hearing the petition filed by the grandson of Bharat Ratna MS Subbulakshmi who challenged a division bench order of the Madras High Court that had allowed the conferment of the award, sponsored by The Hindu Group and selected by the Music Academy, to Krishna.
In its order, the Supreme Court emphasized the enduring respect and honour commanded by MS Subbulakshmi, noting her unparalleled contribution to Indian classical music.
While acknowledging Krishna’s acclaim as a musician, the Court pointed to controversial remarks allegedly made by Krishna in articles, which the petitioner described as disrespectful to Subbulakshmi’s legacy.
The Court observed, “Defendant No. 4 (TM Krishna) should not be recognized as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award and is also restrained from projecting himself as such until the pending case is resolved.”
The Court clarified that its order was not a reflection on the Music Academy, The Hindu Group, or Krishna’s musical abilities but aimed to address the specific concerns raised in the petition.
Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing the Music Academy, argued that the matter had become infructuous since the award was already conferred.
However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkataraman, appearing for the petitioner, insisted otherwise.
The ASG contended that Krishna’s alleged comments—including terms like “the greatest hoax of the twentieth century” and “saintly Barbie doll”—about Subbulakshmi in articles published by The Caravan and The Wire were offensive and disrespectful.
The ASG likened the situation to granting an award in Mahatma Gandhi’s name to someone who insulted him, arguing that such an act would be against constitutional morals.
He pointed out procedural flaws in the High Court’s division bench order, arguing that the injunction against the Music Academy’s conferment of the award was improperly vacated.
Justice Bhatti highlighted procedural issues, noting that the Music Academy had not filed a separate appeal against the injunction order, thus rendering the vacation of the interim injunction legally questionable.
Justice Bhatti remarked, “Each party has to file a separate appeal as per the Civil Procedure Code, and without such an appeal, the Music Academy cannot benefit from the order vacating the injunction.”
He further observed that Krishna had an opportunity to clarify his remarks before the Madras High Court in 2015 but failed to do so, potentially exacerbating the controversy.
“The awardee cannot use the name of MS Subbulakshmi for the award until these issues are resolved,” Justice Bhatti stated.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for TM Krishna, argued that Krishna was a devoted admirer of MS Subbulakshmi and stood by his writings, which he described as an attempt to challenge hagiographic portrayals of the legendary singer.
He contended that the articles aimed to provide a nuanced perspective on her legacy rather than denigrate her.
Vaidyanathan, representing the Music Academy, supported Krishna’s stance, stating that the remarks in the articles were not disrespectful.
The bench clarified that the interim order was case-specific and should not be construed as setting a precedent or commenting on the merits of Krishna’s musical accomplishments.
Justice Roy remarked, ” Maybe there was an issue with the choice of words used by Krishna. ”
The Court directed that the interim restraint on Krishna’s recognition as the award recipient will remain in force until the legal issues are adjudicated in the pending suit.
The Court reiterated that this decision should not prejudice the ongoing evaluation of Krishna’s statements or the procedural validity of the conferment process.
