Shri Kikkeri Krishna Murthy v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SHRI KIKKERI KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE B.S. NARAYANA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO.22/6, EAST ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD OPP. BUGLE ROCK PARK BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA AND CULTURE VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶2THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (POLITICAL)

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka NC:(2026:KHC:1449-DB( WA(No.(1060(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( THNO.605, 6 FLOOR, MULTI STORIED BUILDING ST1 BLOCK, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY

¶3THE DIRECTORATE OF KANNADA AND CULTURE KANNADA BHAVAN J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002

¶4AKHILA KARNATAKA SUGAMA SANGEETHA SAMSTHEGALA OKKUTA (REGD) STOFFICE AT NO 26, 1 CROSS SHAMANNA GARDEN SRINIDHI TEMPLE ROAD CHUNCHAGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. MRUTHYUNJAYA DODDAWADA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 TO 3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL, SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.19801/2022 DATED 24/04/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application - I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed and the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶2The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 24.04.2024 [the impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19801/2022 (GM-RES). The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition as being devoid of any merit.

¶3The appellant is an acclaimed singer. He had filed the writ petition impugning a Government Order dated 25.09.2022, whereby the State Government of Karnataka has directed that the State Anthem 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate' be rendered in a specific tune/raaga as composed by late Sri Mysore Ananthaswamy, who was an acclaimed artist.

¶4The appellant is not aggrieved by the decision of the State Government directing that the Anthem 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate', written by the national poet Shri. Dr. Kuvempu, be considered as a State Anthem (Naadageethe). The appellant also does not question the requirement that the State Anthem be sung in certain functions. The appellant's grievance is only regarding the direction, that the Anthem be sung in a particular tune/raaga.

¶5The State Government by an order dated 09.09.2021 constituted a committee under the chairmanship of a well known singer Smt. H.R.Leelavathi, to consider the scope of singing of the State Anthem, state wide, in a specific tune and within a stipulated time. The committee made its recommendations and pursuant thereto, the State Government has passed an order dated

25.09.2022, which reads as follows: "GOVERNMENT ORDER NO: SIAASUE 168 RASA 2022, BENGALURU, DATED: 25-09-2022 As narrated in the Preamble, it is ordered that complete text of the State Anthem has to be used for singing by Incorporating the tune of Sri Mysore Ananthaswamy and the same has to be sung without there being any aalaap and repetition, within a time period of Two Minutes and Thirty Seconds (2.30 Minutes)."

¶6The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said order violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it requires that the State Anthem be sung in a particular tune. He submitted that the appellant being an artist is now compelled to sing the State Anthem in that tune. He also questioned the merits of the recommendation of the committee on the ground that the tune in question was made the original composer only for two stanzas of the Naadageethe.

¶7It is material to note that before the learned Single Judge, it was also contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order is unsustainable on the ground that it has been issued without any statutory power. However, no such argument is advanced before this Court.

¶8The learned Single Judge had noted that the appellant is not precluded from singing the 'Naadageethe' in any raaga of his choice except at specific functions and places, where the State Anthem is required to be sung. The learned Single Judge also noted that the State Anthem is required to be sung in a specific raaga in schools and other State and public functions. Clearly if a State Anthem is required to be rendered, it is necessary that the

same be rendered in a specific tune/raaga and also be of a specified duration. It is obvious that the anthem cannot be of varying duration and be rendered in varying tunes.

¶9The State Government has passed an order after considering the decision of the Committee which admittedly comprised of accomplished persons.

¶10We are unable to accept that the said decision violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20