In a significant order on Wednesday, the Madras High Court refused a plea seeking the recusal of Justice S.M. Subramaniam from hearing the State of Tamil Nadu's appeal against the Madras Race Club. The Bench, also comprising Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, ruled that the allegations of bias were "wholly devoid of merit" and allowed the government to proceed with public development works around the Guindy Race Course area.
Background
The case stems from the State Government's decision to terminate the long-standing lease granted to the Madras Race Club through G.O. (Ms.) No. 343 dated 6 September 2024. The club had challenged the move before a single judge, obtaining an interim order directing the maintenance of ‘status quo’.
The State later appealed, claiming that the interim order was blocking crucial public works such as pond restoration and the establishment of an Eco Park. With the monsoon approaching, the government argued that continuing the ‘status quo’ order would hinder flood control measures in Chennai.
During the proceedings, the Madras Race Club sought the recusal of Justice S.M. Subramaniam from the Division Bench, citing earlier orders he had passed in cases involving the club and his past appearance, over two decades ago, as an advocate in unrelated suits.
Court's Observations
Justice Subramaniam, delivering the order for the Bench, began by recalling that impartiality is the cornerstone of a civilised legal system, noting that a judge 'must not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial.'
However, the Court found the club’s allegations unfounded. Referring to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (Recusal Matter, 2016) decision, the Bench explained that recusal is warranted only when there exists a 'real danger' or a 'reasonable apprehension of bias' supported by cogent material - not merely on suspicion.
"The apprehension of bias must be judged from the point of view of a healthy and reasonable person," the Court said. "It cannot rest on whimsical assumptions of a litigant."
The Bench clarified that the earlier writ petitions decided by Justice Subramaniam in 2023 were unrelated to the present appeal, as they dealt only with a demand notice for lease recovery, not with the current lease termination or public project issues.
Addressing the argument that Justice Subramaniam had represented a private party against the Race Club in two civil suits nearly twenty years ago, the Bench remarked that such ancient professional associations cannot form the basis for present-day disqualification.
"The fact that the petitioner had no objection when the earlier writ petition was heard by me shows this plea is an afterthought and a mere excuse to avoid the Bench," the Judge observed.
He warned against "forum shopping" - where litigants attempt to choose or avoid specific judges - saying that such tendencies "shake public faith in the judiciary."
Decision
Rejecting the recusal plea, Justice Subramaniam asserted that a judge takes an oath to discharge duties "without fear or favour."
"If I were to accede to such a request, I would be initiating a wrong practice and setting a wrong precedent. It is my duty to continue hearing this case in accordance with the oath I took," he stated firmly.
The Bench then turned to the State’s plea for interim relief. Considering that the status quo order had stalled work on flood prevention and public infrastructure, the Court modified it, permitting the government to continue pond strengthening and Eco Park development in Guindy.
"The respondent club shall cooperate and not obstruct such work," the Court directed, invoking Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits injunctions that delay public infrastructure projects.
Finally, the Court admitted the appeal, issued notices to the remaining respondents, and scheduled the next hearing for four weeks later.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu & Another vs. Madras Race Club & Others
Case Number: O.S.A. No. 335 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 22 October 2025
Appellants Counsel: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel, for Mr. D. Ravichander, Special Government Pleader
Respondents Counsel: Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Counsel, for Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh (for R1)
