On December 13, the Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing of a plea challenging the Madras High Court’s decision that allowed the conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award on musician TM Krishna. The Court scheduled the matter for Monday, December 16, stating that the award could be rescinded if the challenge succeeds.
Background of the Award and the Dispute
The Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award was instituted by The Hindu group to honor the Bharat Ratna awardee, MS Subbulakshmi. This year, TM Krishna was selected for the prestigious accolade. However, Subbulakshmi’s grandson, V Shrinivasan, filed a suit challenging the decision, arguing that Krishna had publicly maligned the late singer and did not represent her values or legacy.
Shrinivasan also pointed out that Subbulakshmi’s 1997 will explicitly stated that no memorials or awards should be instituted in her name, arguing that this mandate had been violated.
Judicial Developments
Single Bench Order: Justice G Jayachandran of the Madras High Court initially restrained The Hindu from presenting the award in Subbulakshmi’s name. The court allowed Krishna to receive the award and cash prize but not under her name.
Division Bench Reversal: A division bench of Justices SS Sunthar and P Dhanabal overturned the single bench’s order, clearing the way for Krishna to receive the award in Subbulakshmi’s name.
Supreme Court Mention: After the division bench’s ruling, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, representing Shrinivasan, sought urgent relief in the Supreme Court, citing the award ceremony scheduled for Sunday. However, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna emphasized that the award could be withdrawn if necessary after the hearing on Monday.
Arguments Against Krishna’s Selection
Shrinivasan argued that Krishna had made disparaging remarks against Subbulakshmi, questioning her contribution to Carnatic music and allegedly portraying her in a negative light. He contended that conferring an award in Subbulakshmi’s name on Krishna would undermine her legacy and values.
Supreme Court’s Observations
CJI Sanjiv Khanna remarked that the case did not involve immediate or irreversible consequences, unlike cases involving demolition or dispossession. He emphasized that procedural fairness and the law would be upheld when the case is heard on Monday.
Implications
The case touches upon broader issues of respecting an individual’s legacy, adherence to their wishes as expressed in legal documents, and the criteria for awarding honors associated with iconic figures. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s deliberation could set a precedent for how such disputes are handled in the future.
Lawcutor 