A Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and P. Dhanabal pass the orders on appeals filed by Music Academy and The Hindu

Updated – December 13, 2024 10:53 pm IST – CHENNAI

Mohamed Imranullah S.1READ LATERPRINT

Singer T.M. Krishna.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday (December 13, 2024) set aside an interim injunction granted by a single judge restraining the Music Academy and The Hindu from giving away a cash prize of ₹1 lakh under the title ‘Sangita Kalanidhi M.S. Subbulakshmi Award’ to Carnatic singer T.M. Krishna.

The High Court’s second Division Bench comprising Justices S.S. Sundar and P. Dhanabal allowed an appeal filed by The Hindu challenging the single judge’s restraint order against the use of the name of M.S. Subbulakshmi for the cash prize being given, since 2005, to the Sangita Kalanidhi awardees selected by the Music Academy.

 Award to T.M. Krishna in the name of M.S. Subbulakshmi: Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing

“Conferment of an award by an organization or a trust in memory of a legend to an individual is a recognition of his/her achievement and is not prohibited in law…. Conferment of award to a person by defendants 1 to 3 (Music Academy and The Hindu) in the suit is a right which is not forbidden or prohibited in law,” the Bench wrote.

“Even assuming, though we are not agreeing, that the desire of M.S. Subbulakshmi was that no award shall be conferred on anyone in her name or memory of her, how can it be enforced if the conferment of the award is not by way of exploiting her personality but by way of honouring her achievements,” the judges wondered.

The acclaimed musician’s grandson V. Shrinivasan had filed a civil suit against the use of his grandmother’s name for the cash prize on the ground that she had left behind a will stating that “no trust, foundation or memorial of any kind, including erecting of any statue or bust, shall be formed or created or made in my name.”

Though the single judge had interpreted the word ‘memorial’ found in the will to include awards and cash prizes too and held that there was a bar on naming them after her, the Division Bench disagreed with him. “This court is unable to accept the logic or reasoning of the learned single judge,” it said.

 Stalin backs T.M. Krishna’s selection for Sangita Kalanidhi award 2024 

“Had it been the intention of the testatrix that no award shall be conferred on anyone in her name, that could have been expressed in simple language. An interpretation contrary to the plain language of the instrument is not permissible in law,” the Division Bench said.

Authoring the verdict, Justice Sundar also said, a careful reading of the contents of the will only leads to a conclusion that the testatrix did not want her name to be misused for creating trusts, foundations and memorials by soliciting public funds.

Further taking note that several other organisations had instituted awards named after M.S. Subbulakshmi and many institutions including the Asian College of Journalism had auditoriums too named after her, the judges questioned the reason for Mr. Shrinivasan not having challenged any of those awards.

“Every award in the name of M.S. Subbulakshmi was only to remember the great icon of Carnatic music. A case of this nature will be shocking to several lakhs of singers and musicians. Except some personal reasons against fourth defendant (Mr. Krishna), the plaintiff has no bona fide cause in this litigation.” the Bench concluded.

It, however, refused to entertain Music Academy’s plea to reject the plaint in toto and said, the plaintiff could establish his case by conducting a full-fledged trial in the civil suit pending before the single judge but held that he had not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction until the disposal of the suit.

The Bench also said: “The testatrix has created a legacy. Every family member enjoys certain respect in the society for being her relative. In such circumstances, it is difficult to accept that everyone in the family of Late Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi will sail with the plaintiff.”

Within minutes after the Division Bench pronounced the operative portion of its order on Friday afternoon and said, a detailed order would follow in the course of the day, senior counsel N. Venkataraman, who also holds the post of Additional Solicitor General in the Supreme Court, made a mention for an urgent hearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.

Mr. Venkataraman said the cash prize was scheduled to be given to Mr. Krishna on Sunday, but the CJI rejected his plea for urgent hearing of the proposed appeal and said, it could be taken up only on Monday. The CJI also orally remarked that the case was related to an award which could always be recalled if there was any merit in the case of the appellant.

After the mentioning of the matter before the Supreme Court, senior counsel R. Sankaranarayanan made a mention before the Division Bench led by Justice Sundar too and apprised it of the decision taken by the plaintiff to prefer an appeal against its verdict. He requested the Division Bench to keep its order in abeyance until the matter could be heard by the top court.

However, senior counsel P.S. Raman (also the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu) representing The Hindu and senior counsel T. Mohan representing Music Academy opposed the request for keeping the order in abeyance and said, the plaintiff could not ride on two horses at the same time by making a mention before the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.

Justice Sundar told Mr. Sankaranarayanan that the order passed by his Bench would be released on the same day and that the plaintiff could take it forward in the manner known to law.

Published – December 13, 2024 12:54 pm IST