High Court decide refuses to recuse from listening to Madras Race Club case

Police deployed exterior the Madras Race Club in Guindy in September 2024 | Photo Credit: R. Ragu

Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court has refused to recuse from listening to an enchantment filed by the Tamil Nadu authorities in opposition to Madras Race Club (MRC) although he had handed hostile orders in opposition to the membership in one other case, in addition to having appeared in opposition to the membership in two instances throughout his stint as a lawyer.

“A decide could recuse, on his personal, from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. That can be a matter of his personal selecting. But recusal on the asking of a litigating get together, until justified, mustn’t ever be acceded to,” the senior decide wrote, whereas presiding over a Division Bench, together with Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.

The State had filed the enchantment in opposition to a establishment order handed by Justice Okay. Kumaresh Babu on July 4, 2025, earlier than the latter, on August 18, 2025, reserved orders on MRC’s plea to restrain the federal government from interfering with its possession of over 140 acres of land at Guindy in Chennai.

Senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the federal government, informed the Division Bench that although the one decide had reserved orders on MRC’s software, the federal government had now chosen to file an enchantment in opposition to his earlier establishment order to strengthen 4 ponds, situated on the land, earlier than the monsoon.

On the opposite hand, senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian, assisted by Vaibhav R. Venkatesh, requested Justice Subramaniam to recuse from listening to the State enchantment as he had handed hostile orders in opposition to the membership in 2023 in a case associated to the demand of exorbitant rental arrears by the federal government.

In that case, Justice Subramaniam had directed the Tamil Nadu authorities to evict MRC from the sprawling Guindy property and take possession of the land, with the help of the police division, if the membership fails to pay the revised hire as demanded by the federal government.

It was relying upon that order handed within the rental dispute that the federal government had initiated eviction proceedings, which had been challenged by MRC earlier than Justice Babu. Therefore, an enchantment arising out of those proceedings couldn’t be heard by Justice Subramaniam sitting in a Division Bench, Mr. Pandian argued.

He additionally stated, the senior decide within the Bench had appeared in opposition to MRC in two completely different civil fits throughout his stint as a lawyer and therefore, there was an actual apprehension within the membership’s thoughts that there may very well be an incredible aspect of prejudice and bias impacting the neutrality of adjudication within the State enchantment.

However, rejecting the request for recusal, Justice Subramaniam wrote: “It is just not each suspicion held by a celebration {that a} decide, listening to the proceedings, is biased should result in recusal. If each comment of a decide… is to be construed as indicating prejudice, it’s afraid most judges will fail to cross the exacting take a look at.”

He went on to state: “I have to make it clear that the choice to not recuse however proceed to listen to the matter was solely mine. Though, I have to state on dialogue with my collegue, on the Bench, he would additionally agree that I mustn’t recuse from listening to the matter.”

The Bench admitted the State enchantment and ordered discover, returnable in 4 weeks, to MRC. In the meantime, by means of an interim order, it additionally modified the one decide’s establishment order and permitted the State authorities to strengthen the 4 ponds and proceed with another venture of public curiosity on the land.

“It is just not in dispute that the strengthening/growth of ponds and eco park are infrastructure initiatives sought to be carried out by the federal government in bigger public curiosity. In view thereof, the order of establishment stands modified as offered supra,” the Division Bench’s interim order learn.

Published – October 28, 2025 04:22 pm IST

  • Related Posts

    The Kerala Story 2 box office prediction: Controversy buzz doesn’t help sequel, film to open at less than half of part 1

    The Kerala Story 2 released in theatres on Saturday, 28 February, after the Kerala High Court lifted a stay on its release. After much back and forth, a late-night High…

    Amitabh Bachchan opens up on father-son bond with Abhishek Bachchan: He walks into my room unannounced

    Megastar Amitabh Bachchan and actor Abhishek Bachchan have always shared one of Bollywood’s most admired father-son bonds. Known for their quiet affection, the two often express their connection through heartfelt…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    Vijay Sethupathys Muthu Alias Kaattaan gets release date; teaser unveiled

    Vijay Sethupathys Muthu Alias Kaattaan gets release date; teaser unveiled

    The Genius of Trees: Read an excerpt from the book by Harriet Rix

    The Genius of Trees: Read an excerpt from the book by Harriet Rix

    Lamborghini seized after Kanpur crash released after 8.5 crore bond payment

    Lamborghini seized after Kanpur crash released after  8.5 crore bond payment

    Prague Masters: Gukesh suffers shock defeat to van Foreest, Aravindh draws with Maghsoodloo

    Prague Masters: Gukesh suffers shock defeat to van Foreest, Aravindh draws with Maghsoodloo

    The Kerala Story 2 box office prediction: Controversy buzz doesn’t help sequel, film to open at less than half of part 1

    The Kerala Story 2 box office prediction: Controversy buzz doesn’t help sequel, film to open at less than half of part 1

    Subedaar: Full music album of Anil Kapoors upcoming actioner out

    Subedaar: Full music album of Anil Kapoors upcoming actioner out