The Supreme Court, on Friday, December 13, refused to urgently hear a plea challenging the Madras High Court’s order allowing The Hindu group to confer the ‘Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award’ to Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna in the late singer’s name. A Division Bench of the Madras HC had earlier in the day overturned an interim order that had barred the use of MS Subbulakshmi’s name for the award. As soon as the HC order was passed, additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman, representing petitioner V Shrinivasan — MS Subbulakshmi’s grandson — requested an urgent hearing, arguing that the Madras HC’s ruling disregarded the singer’s wishes. The HC bench ruled that the late singer’s will, which stated that no memorials or foundations be created in her name, did not explicitly prevent the naming of an award.
The Hindu group constituted the ‘Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award’ in the year 2005, which is a cash prize given to those who win the Sangita Kalanidhi, which is given by The Music Academy, Madras and is considered the highest accolade in the field of Carnatic music.
With the SC declining to intervene immediately, the award presentation ceremony is set to take place as scheduled on December 15.
“This is an extraordinary matter,” the ASG told a SC bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. He alleged that TM Krishna had previously made statements that maligned MS Subbulakshmi’s legacy and was unfit to receive the award.
CJI Khanna, however, declined to list the matter for an urgent hearing, stating, “This is not like any building is coming down.” He added that if the Court later found merit in the plea, the award could always be recalled.
The Madras High Court Division Bench of Justices SS Sundar and P Dhanabal was hearing an appeal by The Hindu group and The Music Academy, when it ruled in favor of Krishna receiving the award conferred in Subbulakshmi’s name. The court held that the term “memorial” in the Bharat Ratna recipient’s will could not be stretched to include awards and that other beneficiaries of the will might have differing interpretations.
The judgement overturned a single-judge ruling that had prohibited the use of Subbulakshmi’s name for the The Hindu group’s award while allowing Krishna to receive it otherwise.
The legal challenge stems from objections raised by Shrinivasan, who alleged that Krishna had made “vituperative” comments about Subbulakshmi, undermining her credibility in the Carnatic music world. He argued that awarding Krishna in her name violated her mandate and the values she upheld. He also contended that no awards should be given using her name.
Shrinivasan cited Subbulakshmi’s 1997 will, which explicitly prohibited any memorial, trust, or foundation in her name. He also claimed that the award should only be conferred on individuals who share values aligned with Subbulakshmi’s legacy, describing Krishna as an “atheist” receiving what he termed a “Bhakti prize”.
Krishna has denied the allegations, asserting that his criticisms are aimed at societal issues within the arts rather than at individuals.
Read: TM Krishna, Sangita Kalanidhi and MS Subbulakshmi: So what’s the row over?