On 16 December 2024, the Supreme Court issued an interim order that Carnatic musician TM Krishna should not be recognized as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award, which was conferred upon him by the Music Academy in Chennai the day before. The Court also restrained Krishna from projecting himself as the recipient of the award in the name of MS Subbulakshmi.
The Court’s decision followed a petition filed by the grandson of Bharat Ratna MS Subbulakshmi, challenging the interim order issued by the Madras High Court’s division bench. The High Court had allowed the Music Academy to confer the prestigious award to TM Krishna, but the petition argued that Krishna had made disrespectful comments regarding MS Subbulakshmi in the past.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti, which heard the matter, observed, “The Court is mindful of the respect and honour that MS Subbulakshmi commands across the all spectrum. She is one of the most distinguished singers and although she passed away in December 2004, her melodious voice continues to bring great joy to all her fans.”
However, the bench noted that while the comments made by TM Krishna may have been his way of conveying respect, the words he used were deemed inappropriate. “At the same time, while the write-ups and the comments made by defendant no.4 (TM Krishna) are his way of conveying his respect for the singer, the plaintiff certainly feels that the words used by defendant no.4, to say the least, are not in good taste,” the Court stated.
As a result, the bench ruled that the award should not be recognized in Krishna’s name and that he should refrain from projecting himself as its recipient. “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 order stated.
The Court also made it clear that its interim order should not be interpreted as a reflection on the Music Academy or The Hindu Group, who sponsors the award. “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,” the order read.
The controversy arose over Krishna’s past writings, where he had referred to MS Subbulakshmi in derogatory terms. According to Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, who represented the petitioner, Krishna made several “nauseating” and “misogynistic” comments about Subbulakshmi. Venkataraman argued, “It is akin to giving an award in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to a person who insults him,” asserting that it would be contrary to constitutional morals to grant an award in the name of a respected figure to someone who had insulted them.
In his petition, Venkataraman referred to articles written by Krishna in which he called Subbulakshmi “the greatest hoax of the twentieth century,” “diva,” and a “saintly Barbie doll.” He also pointed out that Krishna had failed to provide any justification for these comments when given the opportunity by the Madras High Court. “He had opportunity to explain what he said in 2015 before Madras HC. But he did not. He rather added fuel to fire,” Justice Bhatti observed during the hearing.
The legal arguments centered around whether the Music Academy and The Hindu Group had acted within their rights to confer the award, given the ongoing legal challenge. Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing the Music Academy, argued that the matter had become infructuous as the award had already been conferred upon Krishna. However, Venkataraman insisted that the matter was not resolved yet, referencing an oral remark made by the Chief Justice of India, who had suggested that the Court could order the award be taken back if the challenge was found to be valid.
The case also raised procedural questions regarding the injunction orders. Venkataraman contended that the injunction against the conferment of the award was still valid, as the Music Academy had failed to challenge the injunction properly. “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,” Venkataraman argued.
The bench also pointed out that the Music Academy had not filed an appeal against the injunction, and Justice Bhatti noted that the injunction against them remained in effect. “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 observed.
Justice Bhatti further stated that until the issue was resolved in court, TM Krishna should not be allowed to use MS Subbulakshmi’s name in relation to the award. “Till we are clear, awardee cannot have the award in the name of person who he is stated to have disrespected,” the Justice said.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who represented TM Krishna, opposed the suggestion, asserting that Krishna was the “greatest fan of Subbulakshmi.” Sankaranarayanan also defended Krishna’s comments, claiming that they were an attempt to dismantle the “hagiographic myth” surrounding Subbulakshmi. “Krishna was the ‘greatest fan of Subbulakshmi’ and stood by every word he has written and claimed that the article was an attempt to bust the ‘hagiographic myth’ about Subbulakshmi,” Sankaranarayanan stated.
Vaidyanathan, representing the Music Academy, also expressed that there was nothing problematic with Krishna’s writings. However, Justice Roy commented, “Maybe there was an issue of choice of words (by TM Krishna).”
The Supreme Court’s interim order will remain in effect until the pending lawsuit regarding Krishna’s recognition as the award recipient is resolved.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
