TM Krishna Shall Not Be Recognized As Recipient Of Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award : Supreme Court's Interim Order

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 16) passed an interim order that Carnatic musician TM Krishna should not be recognized as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award given by the Music Academy at Chennai yesterday.

The Court's interim order also restrained TM Krishna from projecting himself as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi award in the name of MS Subbulakshmi.      

A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the interim order in a petition filed by the grandson of Bharat Ratna MS Subbulakshmi challenging the Madras High Court's division bench's interim order which allowed the conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award, sponsored by the Hindu Group and chosen by The Music Academy, to TM Krishna.

Issuing notice to the respondent, the Court observed in the order :

"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 defendant no.4, to the say the least, are not in good taste."

"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."

The Court further said in the order: "It must be made clear that the Music Academy has a glorious legacy, particularly in their contribution to the music. Same is also the reputation of The Hindu Group who have sponsored the award. This interim order should not be seen as a reflection either on the Music Academy or the Hindu Group. This order should not also be seen as a reflection of the Court's comment on the singing abilities of defendant no.4."

Arguments in Court

As soon as the matter was taken, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, for the Music Academy, submitted that the matter has become infructuous as the award was given to him yesterday.

Senior Advocate N Venkataraman, appearing for the petitioner, insisted that the matter has not become infructuous, referring to an oral remark made by the Chief Justice of India on Friday (when the matter was mentioned for urgent hearing) that the Court can order the taking back of the award if the challenge is found to be meritorious.

Alleging that Krishna made several "nauseating" and "misogynistic" comments against Subbulakshmi, Venkataraman asked if it was appropriate to grant the award in her name to such a person. It is akin to giving an award in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to a person who insults him, he said, asserting that it would be contrary to constitutional morals. He alleged that Krishna called Subbulakshmi "the greatest hoax of the twentieth century", "diva", "saintly Barbie doll" etc., in the articles written in 'The Caravan' and 'The Wire'. 

He pointed out that initially, a single bench of the High Court passed an interim injunction against the conferment of the award. The Music Academy did not file any appeal against the interim injunction order; rather, they filed an appeal against the order refusing to reject the plaint. Hence, the division bench could not have passed an order in Music Academy's appeal vacating the interim injunction, Venkataraman argued, calling it a "fatal error of law."

He further argued that the interim injunction was set aside only as against the Hindu Group and claimed that the injunction against the Music Academy was still operative. This is because the interim injunction was only challenged by The Hindu group.

The bench at this juncture addressed Vaidyanathan (for Music Academy) and said, "there was an injunction against you." When Vaidyanathan asserted that the injunction order was set aside, Justice Roy said, "it was set aside not vis-a-vis you."

Justice Bhatti at this point observed that as per the Civil Procedure Code, each party has to file a separate appeal, and when the Music Academy has not challenged the injunction order, it cannot claim the benefit of the vacation of the interim order.

Justice Bhatti turned to Advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy (for TM Krishna) and said that he had read the articles written by TM Krishna. "This is a matter of sensitive and important issue. Awardee had opportunity to explain what he said in 2015 before Madras HC. But he did not. He rather added fuel to fire," Justice Bhatti said.

Justice Bhatti said that the awardee shall not use the name of MS Subbulakshmi for the award till his justifications are decided in the pending suit. "Till we are clear, awardee cannot have the award in the name of person who he is stated to have disrespected," Justice Bhatti said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for The Hindu Group) and Vaidyanathan opposed this suggestion, saying that it would amount to ordering status quo ante, which cannot be done without a proper opportunity to reply.

Sankaranarayanan, asserting that Krishna was the "greatest fan of Subbulakshmi" said that he stood by every word he has written and claimed that the article was an attempt to bust the "hagiographic myth" about Subbulakshmi.

Vaidyanathan too weighed in, saying that he did not find anything problematic in the articles written by TM Krishna.

"Maybe there was an issue of choice of words (by TM Krishna)," Justice Roy commented.

The petition was filed through AoR Namit Saxena.

Case :  V SHRINIVASAN Vs THG PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED |D No. 58560/2024