The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant verdict, upholding the state government's official selection of a specific musical composition for the rendition of the state anthem. A division bench dismissed an appeal challenging the government's decision, marking a pivotal moment in the cultural governance of the state.
Court's Verdict on the Anthem Dispute
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha firmly rejected the appeal filed by singer Kikkeri Krishnamurthy. The appeal was against a single-judge order that had earlier dismissed his petition. The bench clarified a crucial point: the state government's order did not prohibit anyone from singing the state anthem in their own manner. Therefore, the court found that the appellant's fundamental rights were not infringed upon by the official designation.
Background of the Legal Challenge
The core of the dispute dates back to September 25, 2022, when the Karnataka government issued an official order selecting a tune composed by Mysuru Ananthaswamy for the state anthem, 'Jayabharatha Jananiya Thanujaate'. This poem by Rashtrakavi Kuvempu was officially designated as the state anthem in 2004.
Krishnamurthy, in his challenge, argued that since 2004, Karnataka had consistently used a tune composed by C Ashwath for performances of the anthem. He contended that Mysuru Ananthaswamy had not composed a complete tune for the anthem and that there was a lack of material evidence to support the government's claim, making its order unenforceable.
Judicial Reasoning and Rights Upheld
The single-judge bench, which had initially dismissed the singer's petition in April 2025, provided detailed reasoning that was endorsed by the division bench. The court pointed out that the petitioner's rights were not violated. This includes:
- His Fundamental Right to Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- His occupational rights safeguarded under Article 19(1)(g).
The bench also highlighted that the selection of a specific raaga for the official rendition was not arbitrary. It followed a detailed study conducted by a high-level committee of experts in the field, lending credence and procedural validity to the government's decision.
This ruling brings legal finality to the issue, affirming the state's authority to standardize a tune for official purposes while simultaneously affirming the freedom of citizens to offer their personal renditions. The judgment underscores the balance between state protocol for official functions and individual artistic freedom.
