Dismissed¶54

Shri Kikkeri Krishna Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WA/1060/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Division Bench; writ appeal dismissed; State Anthem 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate' (Naadageethe, Kuvempu); Government Order dated 25.09.2022 (SIAASUE 168 RASA 2022) mandating Mysore Ananthaswamy tune/raaga, no aalaap or repetition, 2 minutes 30 seconds; Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression challenge rejected; H.R. Leelavathi committee; delay of 43 days condoned; W.P.No.19801/2022 order dated 24.04.2024 upheld.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 43 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A.No.1/2025 allowed); substantive relief sought (setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition) refused ¶54

Shri Kikkeri Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 43 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A.No.1/2025 allowed); substantive relief sought (setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition) refused

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Government Order dated 25.09.2022 requiring the State Anthem 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate' to be sung in a specific tune/raaga (as composed by late Sri Mysore Ananthaswamy) violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India

¶47

Court's answer

The direction in the Government Order dated 25.09.2022 that the State Anthem be sung in a particular tune/raaga does not violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India; there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition

¶54

Ratio / Principle

Where a State Anthem is required to be rendered, it is necessary that it be rendered in a specific tune/raaga and also be of a specified duration; an anthem cannot be of varying duration and be rendered in varying tunes

¶52

Key takeaways

The State Government passed the order after considering the decision of the Committee, which admittedly comprised of accomplished personsratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Karnataka High Court, Division Bench, under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act) against the learned Single Judge's order dated 24.04.2024 in W.P.No.19801/2022 dismissing the appellant-singer's challenge to Government Order No. SIAASUE 168 RASA 2022 dated 25.09.2022, which directed that the State Anthem 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate' (written by Dr. Kuvempu) be sung in the tune/raaga of late Sri Mysore Ananthaswamy, without aalaap or repetition, within two minutes thirty seconds. The appellant did not challenge the Anthem's status as Naadageethe or the requirement to sing it at specified functions, but only the direction as to tune; his contention that the tune-direction violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution was rejected. Held that where a State Anthem is required to be rendered, it is necessary that it be rendered in a specific tune/raaga and of a specified duration, and an anthem cannot be of varying duration or rendered in varying tunes; the GO was passed after considering the recommendations of a committee headed by Smt. H.R. Leelavathi comprising accomplished persons. No ground to interfere; appeal dismissed (delay of 43 days in filing condoned). The contention that the GO was issued without statutory power was raised before the Single Judge but not pressed before the Division Bench.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1449-DB WA No. 1060 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI KIKKERI KRISHNA MURTHY

¶11

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

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:1449-DB WA No. 1060 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NO.605, 6^TH FLOOR, MULTI STORIED BUILDING 1^ST BLOCK, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY

¶22

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

¶23

AKHILA KARNATAKA SUGAMA SANGEETHA SAMSTHEGALA OKKUTA (REGD) OFFICE AT NO 26, 1^ST CROSS SHAMANNA GARDEN SRINIDHI TEMPLE ROAD CHUNCHAGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. MRUTHYUNJAYA DODDAWADA

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 TO 3)

¶26

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.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:1449-DB WA No. 1060 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

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

¶34

For 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.

¶35

The 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 (GMRES). The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition as being devoid of any merit.

¶36

The 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.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:1449-DB WA No. 1060 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The 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.

¶41

The 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:

¶42

“GOVERNMENT ORDER NO:

¶43

SIAASUE 168 RASA 2022, BENGALURU, DATED: 25-09-2022

¶44

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).”

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1449-DB WA No. 1060 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The 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.

¶48

It 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.

¶49

The 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

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1449-DB WA No. 1060 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

We 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.

¶55

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶56

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶57

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

Shri Kikkeri Krishna Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kikkeri Krishna Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B S Suresh Vs the Chief Commissioner

Mr Syed Tabraiz Vs M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Pramod Kumar P. Laxmin Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sai Sri Blue Metals Vs the Chief Secretary

M/S Systems 5S Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Chakoli Appalal Vs Mr v Manamohan