Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Which Restrained Conferment Of Award In MS Subbulakshmi's Name To TM Krishna

The Madras High Court has set aside a single judge order restrainig The Music Academy and The Hindu group from conferring the Sangita Kalanidhi Award to musical TM Krishna in Late MS Subbulakshmi's name. 

The division bench of Justice SS Sunthar and Justice P Dhanabal passed the order on an appeal preferred by The Music Academy and the Hindu Group. Though a mention was made against the division bench order before the Supreme Court, the CJI directed the matter to be posted on Monday.

When the matter was being heard, the bench noted that MS Subbalakshmi had prohibited any memorials or trusts in her name or any donations to be collected in her name. The bench wondered if the recitals in the will could be interpreted to prevent any third parties from instituting an award in her memory or in her name. The bench orally remarked that the late singer's wish was to prevent misuse of her name and might not have necessarily prevent third parties from giving awards in her name.

"How is granting an award restricted in the will? What is the legal sanctity/propriety of the will? How can you wish for something that affects another person's privilege? How can those wishes be enforced in a court of law? How is the music academy restricted by the will?"  the bench had orally remarked.

On November 19, Justice G Jayachandran had in an interim order restrained the Music Academy and The Hindu from conferring the “Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award” to TM Krishna or any other person. While doing so, the single judge had noted that during her lifetime and through her will, the late singer had forbidden the institution of any award in her name. It had observed that it could not allow any violation of the wish under the guise of commemorating her or honouring her. The single judge had observed that it could not neglect its responsibility to ensure the enforcement of the desire and mandate of the death person. The court further remarked that the best way to honour a departed soul is to honour and respect her wish and not disrespect it.

The single judge also dismissed the application filed by the Music Academy, challenging the locus of the plaintiff, V Shrinivas who is MS Subbalakmi's grandson. The single judge had ruled that since Shirnivas was a beneficiary of the will, he had an interest in the matter and thus had locus to file the plants challenging the awards. 

In it's appeal, the Music academy contended that Subbalakshmi, in her will, had appointed Mr. S. Nagarajan as Executor to carry out her wishes and administer the property as mandated in the Will. Thus, the academy argued that as per Sections 211 and 216 of the Indian Succession Act, the Executor alone could act as the representative of the Testator for all purposes and thus, Shrinivas could not represent the estate of the deceased. The academy also argued that Shrinivas was just one of the several beneficiaries of the will and did not derive any enforceable right to sustain the suit as a legal representative of the testator. The academy submitted that Shrinivas was not personally affected and as such the suit was barred under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act.

The academy further submitted that the court had erroneously concluded that the will barred any institution of awards in the name of the late singer while the recital of the will made it clear that there was no bar in respect of conferment of the award.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 477

Case Title: The Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others

Case No: OSA 235 of 2024