TM Krishna should not be recognised as recipient of MS Subbulakshmi award: SC’s interim order

Subbulakshmi’s grandson V Shrinivasan had approached the High Court challenging the Academy’s decision to give the award to Krishna, saying the latter had made objectionable remarks against the late singer, a Bharat Ratna awardee.

Issuing notice, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti said “while arguments have been advanced by all the contesting parties in the suit through their respective counsel, the court is mindful of the respect and honour that M S Subbulakshmi commands among music lovers across all the spectrum. She is one of the most distinguished singers and although she passed away in December 2004, her mellifluous voice continues to bring great joy to all her fans. At the same time, while the write-ups and the comments made by defendant no.4 (T M Krishna) in describing the singer are his way of conveying his respect for the singer, the plaintiff certainly feels that the words used by defendant no.4 were, to the say the least, not in good taste.”

“As the award has already been awarded on 15.12.2024, we deem it appropriate to say that defendant no.4 T M Krishna, should not be recognised as a recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi M S Subbulakshmi Award. He is also restrained from projecting himself as a recipient of the award.”

The bench also said, “It must be made clear that the Music Academy has a glorious legacy and their contribution in the field of music is internationally recognised. 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 publication.”

The counsel appearing for Krishna urged the court that the restraint order should not be seen as a reflection on Krishna’s music. Justice Bhatti then said, “He is himself a great Carnatic singer. I have also heard him. This shall not be a reflection on the respondent’s stellar performance.”

When a counsel appearing for one of the respondents asked if the restraint is only till the next date of hearing, Justice Bhatti said, “no madam. It’s not that urgent. We will hear.”

Appearing for the appellant Shrinivasan, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman said Krishna had made “a misogynistic comment” against Subbulakshmi, yet the award was being given to him.

“This person makes a comment against a Bharat Ratna (awardee) that she is the greatest hoax and (yet) an award is given. And the Division Bench of Madras High Court says giving this award is actually an honour and millions of people will be very happy,” the ASG submitted.

He also pointed out that the HC Division Bench order had not removed the injunction granted by the single judge against the Academy and hence it could not have proceeded with the award ceremony.

Senior Advocate C S Vaidyanathan appearing for the Academy opposed the court’s suggestion that it would order status quo ante and said, “This is not a case for status quo ante.”

Justice Bhatti then said, “There is another song of MS Subbulakshmi which says Nanatti Bathuku Natakam… it says it’s all momentary… It is definitely the prerogative and power of your client to select the award. Why we want to look at this matter is the person who is receiving the award… whether he desires (and) next in adjudication process, he deserves? We are not questioning the gentleman.”

Senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan appearing for The Hindu group said that of Subbulakshmi’s children and grandchildren, only Shrinivasan had come to court. “Others have written against it.”

Opposing the suggestion of ordering status quo ante, he said, “I’m a fan of Subbulakshmi. I stand by every word that is written in those two articles (by Krishna) because it dispels the hagiographic notions that people have about somebody who was one of the greatest singers in the history of this country. She is a Bharat Ratna (recipient) and belongs to all of us. One grandchild cannot come at a point which is convenient for him and say no we are going to interrupt this.” He added that Krishna’s comments were being read out of context.

Justice Roy said, “We are not taking away the award. We are holding it in appropriate fashion l. We will hear you.”

Vaidyanathan said, “I am a great admirer of MS Subbulakshmi… I don’t find anything wrong in the article written by him (Krishna).”

Justice Bhatti remarked that “if you convince us on those lines, we may vacate our order also”.

Vaidyanathan said a status quo ante order “will be harming the reputation of a person unjustly”.

Justice Roy said, “I’m sure we can use appropriate words here. Court is not powerless.”

The judge said, “Let us not forget that there was an injunction order… Person is obviously an admirer, we have every reason to believe. Maybe the choice of words, there could be an issue here.”

Vaidyanathan said, “The HC order expressly says the injunction has been vacated.”

Justice Roy said, “No, the injunction has not been vacated as against you (Academy).”

Justice Bhatti added, “The injunction was operating against all three respondents… The Music Academy has chosen to file an appeal against only the order 7 rule 11 application.”

Justice Bhatti told Krishna’s counsel Suhrith Parthasarathy, “I have gone through the articles and also the counter filed by your client (in the Madras HC). It is a kind of justification but not retracting or denial as to what he said… Unless and until the justification you have offered as against the sentences you have published in these two articles are… decided by a court, you shall not be allowed to use the suffix Subbulakshmi award.”

Justice Bhatti further said, “This is a… very very sensitive and important issue. What you wanted to say you have said in 2015. You had an opportunity to explain your stand while the litigation was going on before the High Court. You didn’t do that. On the other hand, you have further added fuel to what you said in 2015. Your client on the one hand cannot say you have utmost disrespect for her. I treat her as a hoax, I treat her as a Barbie doll etc, but I want the award.”

Vaidyanathan denied that Krishna said anything like that. “I have read the article. It does not show any disrespect.”

Parthasarathy said, “So far as the articles are concerned, it has been my consistent stand and I have also stated this even in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single judge that nowhere do I describe the late great M S Subbulakshmi as the greatest hoax. To the contrary, what I say in the article is that many others have described her thus and that the article is an effort to bust that myth.”

Justice Bhatti said, “That is again a matter of reading by the courts… We are considering all the intricacies involved in the matter.”