The interim order has come just a day after Krishna received the award on Sunday from the Music Academy, a reputed name in the classical music world. The award was sponsored by the Hindu Group.

A bench headed by justice Hrishikesh Roy said, “As an interim measure, as the award has already been awarded on December 15, we deem it appropriate to say that the defendant (TM Krishna) should not be recognised as the recipient of the Sangeetha Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award and is also restrained from projecting himself as recipient of the above award.”

Terming the matter as “sensitive”, the court issued notice on the grandson’s plea and sought the response from Krishna, the Music Academy and Hindu Group within six weeks.

The bench, also comprising justice SVN Bhatti said, “It is a sensitive issue. Having gone through the response filed by defendant (Krishna) before the HC, it is clear there is no denial but justification. You have added fuel to what you said earlier. Unless and until the justification is decided by this court, you cannot be allowed to use the suffix of MS Subbulakshmi.”

Additional solicitor general (ASG) N Venkatraman, who appeared in his private capacity along with advocate Namit Saxena for the grandson V Shrinivasan, read out the articles written by Krishna where words such as “sexy”, saintly Barbie doll” and “hoax” were used in the context of Subbulakshmi. He said that associating Krishna with the award conferred in memory of Subbulakshmi was an insult to her as the comments are not in good taste.

Although Shrinivasan succeeded in getting a stay on the grant of award from a single judge bench of the high court on November 19, a two-judge bench set aside the interim injunction on December 13. The matter was mentioned the same day when Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna agreed to post the matter on Monday while observing that an award can be recalled.

Even legally, he pointed out that the November 19 order granting injunction against the award continued to operate against the Academy which hadn’t filed any appeals. The December 13 order came on an appeal by the Hindu group.

The bench said, “This court is mindful of the respect and honour that MS Subbulakshmi commands among music lovers spread across the spectrum. She is one of the most distinguished singer and although, she passed away in December 2004, her mellifluous voice has possibly stayed and continues to bring great joy to all her fans.”

The interim order was objected to by senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan appearing for the Academy and senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Haripriya Padmanbhan for the publication. They argued that though being big fans of Subbulakshmi, they do not feel offended by Krishna’s articles as it only tries to dispel the hagiographic image of the great singer.”

The bench said, “None of us in this courtroom is not a fan of this singer. But one court has passed an injunction order…Till we are clear why he has got the articles published, he cannot have the award in the name of whom he has said this.”

The court clarified that the order will not mean that the Academy will take away the award from him. For Krishna, advocate Suthirth Parthasarthy said that the intention was not to convey disrespect for Subbulakshmi. “Nowhere do I describe her as the greatest hoax as alleged in the petition. To the contrary, I say that these terms are what others say about her and I want to bust that myth.”

The bench observed, “We will be reading all intricacies in the matter. It is a matter of absorption and appreciation at different levels.” The bench also shared a line from one of the popular songs by Subbulakshmi which suggested, “All things are momentary”, as it told the lawyers defending the HC judgment, “It is your prerogative conferring title on someone. Why we want to look at the matter is about the person who is getting the award. Let him wait for our adjudication.”

On Friday, soon after the Madras HC passed the order setting aside the injunction, Shrinivasan mentioned his petition before CJI Khanna who refused to grant an urgent hearing and said, “This is not like a building that is to come down. The award can always be taken back. They can recall the award if required.”