The Madras HC has recently stopped the Music Academy from giving the arguably unconventional singer TM Krishna an award named after M.S. Subbulakshmi. The court agreed with Subbulakshmi’s grandson, who argued that Krishna’s criticism of the late singer made the award inappropriate. The court clarified that Krishna could still receive the award without Subbulakshmi’s name attached.
The award an annual one has been instituted by the Music Academy Chennai. The Court’s order is rooted in common sense. The Music Academy should have known the background of TM Krishna who has in the past denounced conventional Carnatic music and musicians in strongest possible terms thereby incurring the wrath of the cognoscenti.
In a way the Music Academy gesture was more mischievous than appreciatory of the rebel singer TM Krishna because it amounts to not only giving a leg-up to him but also gives the impression that it shares and endorses his iconoclastic views on the hoary music tradition. The Court rightly asked the Music Academy to go ahead with its award to TM Krishna sans the linkage to the legendary MS Subbalakshmi.
Case 2: State cannot press adverse possession argument to claim title of land
In the State of Haryana versus Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives, the Supreme Court reiterated that the state cannot plead adverse possession to claim title on a piece of land. That is an argument available to citizens.
Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government, observed the Court.
The defendant’s gravamen was his land was squatted upon by the government. The SC rightly observed that the Haryana government cannot claim adverse possession just by laying road with bitumen. And more importantly the doctrine of adverse possession, which means an intruder occupying a property for a long time without the actual owner demurring, cannot be pressed in by the government against innocent citizens.
Case 3: No disciplinary proceedings be initiated post-retirement
In State Bank of India versus Navin Kumar Sinha case, the Supreme Court recently held that while disciplinary proceedings initiated during service can be continued even after retirement of the concerned employee, it cannot be implemented once he has retired or resigned. Thus, the bank was ordered to forthwith release the retirement dues of the defendant.
It is common for employers to get vindictive and raise a disciplinary issue in hindsight against an employee who has already put in his papers or retired. While the Supreme Court has protected retired employees against such highhandedness, there is no guarantee that employers may not display such petulance and mean-mindedness, during the last few months of service before superannuation.
Case 4: Government cannot be mandated to notify all deaths to LIC
In Aakash Goel versus Union of India & Others, the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL asking for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to share the death data with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) so that all beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bheema yojana (PMJJBY) could get ₹2 lakh.
The Court said such an order and its implementation could be potentially scandalous. It is impossible for the MHA to put in place a system that would automatically inform the LIC the factum of death of every person in this country. Though the idea behind PMJJBJ is laudable — no legal heir should be left high and dry in the event of the unfortunate death of a person — yet he must have taken steps to get the policy documents from the LIC, the implementing agency for PMJJBY. In other words, the onus is not on the LIC to keep track of all deaths and contact the family of the deceased.
—The author, S Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert, who comments and interprets important court rulings and judgements. The views expressed are his own and personal.
Read the previous Legal Digest columns here
