TM Krishna. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Monday (December 16, 2024) in an interim order, directed “not to recognize” Carnatic singer TM Krishna as a recipient of the Hindu Sangeet Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, who claimed to be the grandson of late legendary singer MS Subbulakshmi, ruled against Bengaluru-based V. Hearing a petition filed by Srinivasan, Mr. Krishna was “restrained from presenting himself as the recipient of this award.”
The Supreme Court’s order came a day after the award instituted by Sri Krishna Hindu and awarded by the Sangeet Academy at the inauguration of its 98th Annual Conference and Concert in Chennai.
“It should be clear that the Sangeet Academy has a glorious legacy. Their contribution to the field of music is universally recognized. The same is the reputation of the Hindu group. The interim order should not be seen as a reflection of the Sangeet Academy or Hindu Or comment on TM Krishna’s singing ability,” Justice Roy instructed in the order.
Srinivasan, Additional Solicitor General N. Represented by Venkataraman, who was acting in his private capacity as a lawyer, accused Sri Krishna of making “nauseating” and “mystical” comments about the Padma Vibhushan and Bharat Ratna award-winning singer. Died in December 2004.
The petitioner argued that a person who “insulted” the singer should not receive the award given in her name.
“Someone made bad comments about Bapu Mahatma Gandhi…doesn’t it offend the constitutional values to confer an award in his name on that person? This person comments against the Bharat Ratna awardee that he is the ‘biggest impostor’…” Mr. Venkataraman submitted. did
Mr. Venkataraman said there was also a High Court order for the order to proceed against the Sangeet Academy, which the institution had violated by awarding the award to Mr. Krishna.
Music Academy, appearing for the respondents including THG Publishing Private Limited, HinduAnd Sri Krishna, senior advocates CS Vaidyanathan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and advocate Suhrit Parthasarathy vehemently denied that the Carnatic singer called the Bharat Ratna awardee “the biggest fraud”.
“It has been my consistent stand that I have never described the late great MS Subbulakshmi as the ‘biggest fraud’. On the contrary, what I have said in the articles is that many others have described her that way. The article is an attempt to dispel that myth,” Mr. Parthasarathy argued.
Taking into account the opposing views, Justice Roy while issuing his order noted that “while Shri Krishna’s writings and comments are a way of expressing his respect for the singer, the plaintiff-petitioner (Srinivasan) certainly feels that the words. At least, Shri Krishna used It wasn’t in good taste.”
“The court has taken into account the respect and honor MS Subbulakshmi commands over music lovers across all spectrums. She is one of the legendary singers. She passed away in December 2004, her melodious voice bringing great joy to her fans,” observed Justice Roy.
Justice Bhatti said it was “within the vested power and prerogative” of the music academy’s executive committee to select the awardee, but “unless we are clear that Shri Krishna had no intention of publishing the article, he is. The award should not be named after someone he has disrespected.” Justice Bhatti added that the Carnatic singer had chosen to justify his alleged comments and articles in the past. “This is a very important and sensitive issue,” he said.
Justice Bhatti asked Mr. Vaidyanathan, who was present at the Sangeet Academy, whether his client had appealed against the interim order passed by the High Court or whether the appeal under Civil Procedure Order 7 Rule 11 was restricted to the question of maintenance of the plaintiff. code.
The court allowed Srinivasan Liberty to amend the special leave petition if necessary and allowed the four respondents to file their replies. A case was registered six weeks later.
published – December 16, 2024 at 10:02 am IST