New Delhi: Well-known Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna was Monday restrained by the Supreme Court from projecting himself as the recipient of Sangita Kalanidhi M.S. Subbulakshmi Award conferred upon him by the Madras Music Academy the previous day.
A division bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V. Bhatti passed the order while issuing a notice to the eminent artist as well as Chennai-based Madras Music Academy on music maestro Subbulakshmi’s grandson’s appeal in which he challenged the Madras High Court order that allowed Academy to confer the award during a ceremony held Sunday.
Though the grandson, V. Shrinivasan, had moved the Supreme Court Friday, hours after the HC declined to give him relief, the top court turned down his request for an urgent hearing.
A division bench of the HC had set aside an interim injunction given by a single-judge bench that barred the Academy from conferring the award on Krishna. Shrinivasan has accused Krishna of “disrespecting” his grandmother in his articles.
During the hearing the SC bench orally viewed that Krishna “added fuel to fire,” rather than explaining what he said, in his article, before the Madras HC. “This is a sensitive and important issue,” the bench said.
“The court is mindful of the respect and honor that M.S. Subbulakshmi commands as a 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 defendant no.4 [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 SC noted in its interim order.
The controversy around the institution and conferment of the award in memory of Subbulakshmi stems from a petition by Shrinivasan opposing Krishna as its recipient.
Madras Music Academy and The Hindu Group collaborated to institute the award as a mark of respect towards Subbulakshmi.
In his suit filed before Madras HC, soon after Krishna’s name was announced as the award recipient, Shrinivasan raised a two-fold argument against the Academy’s decision. His first contention was that his grandmother’s will prohibited any form of memorial in her name, and that included awards as well. He specifically objected to Krishna’s nomination on the ground that he was an “atheist” whose “vile, vituperative, and scandalous” remarks on Subbulakshmi disqualified him from receiving an award named after her.
Krishna has drawn criticism from a particular group of Carnatic musicians for speaking out about the traditional norms and deeply ingrained discriminatory practices in this field of music.
However, Shrinivasan in his suit claimed Krishna’s statements against his grandmother are “downright disgraceful, unjustifiably questioning the credibility of the renowned singer at the altar of cheap politics”.
“He [Krishna] would not have dared to throw such calumny on the late singer during her lifetime,” his suit claimed.
A single-judge bench of Justice G. Jayachandran had in November ordered the Academy to confer the award on Krishna without naming Subbulakshmi. On an appeal filed by the Academy, the division bench set aside the award with an observation that the term “memorial” in Subbulakshmi’s will shall not extend to awards.
Also Read: How TM Krishna got under the skin of the Carnatic music fraternity
‘Nauseating, misogynistic comments’
Arguing for the grandson, Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman Monday countered the Academy’s assertion that since Krishna had been given the award Sunday, Shrinivasan’s petition was rendered infructuous.
Venkataraman disagreed with senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan’s contention that there was no need to hear the matter. He recalled CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s oral observations made Friday when Shrinivasan’s appeal was mentioned for an early hearing. The CJI, he said, remarked that the award can be taken back if the challenge is found to be meritorious.
Krishna was accused of making several “nauseating” and “misogynistic” comments, while reading out words such as “diva,” “saintly barbie doll” used by the singer in his articles.
Venkataraman pointed to a technical flaw in the HC order, saying the Academy had not challenged the injunction against conferment of the award, but questioned the single-judge’s order before a division bench for not rejecting Shrinivasan’s petition at the threshold. Therefore, according to him, the injunction against the Academy continues to be in force, which means it could not have given the award to Krishna.
The bench found merit in the argument and questioned Vaidyanathan on it.
Justice Bhatti then turned to the counsel for The Hindu Group and observed verbally that he had read the articles written by 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,” he said.
He then suggested Krishna should not use the name of 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.
This was opposed by Krishna’s counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who said the said order would amount to ordering status quo ante. He, along with Vaidyanathan, said Krishna’s article was an attempt to bust the myth about Subbulakshmi, prompting Justice Roy to quip: “Maybe there was an issue of choice of words [in the article].”
The bench, thereafter, ordered: “It must be made clear that the Music Academy has a glorious legacy, particularly in their contribution to 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.”
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: ‘Brahmin citadel’, rebranded Bharatanatyam — what’s Madras Music Academy, in eye of TM Krishna storm
Ram and his brother Murali have an iron grip on the Music Academy and twist the other office bearers to do whatever he wants. His intentions are quite despicable. Hindu used to be the go to read for any Chennaiite in the olden times. But look at it now. It is a mouthpiece of the DMK and Periyarists.
TM Krishna is just a puppet. The puppeteer is N Ram, former editor-in-chief of The Hindu.
N Ram has always been a master of the art of creating mischief. In this aspect, he is way more talented than even the infamous British.
Mr. N Ram is the one who conjured up the Rafale “scam” just months before the 2019 general elections. He is the man responsible for the ongoing internal strife in the world of Carnatic music.
Mr. TM Krishna is just an idiot who is dancing along. The tunes and the beats are Mr. Ram’s.