Justice S.M. Subramaniam declines to recuse himself from hearing TN’s appeal against Madras Race Club

Chennai, Oct 28 Madras High Court judge Justice S.M. Subramaniam has declined to withdraw from hearing a Tamil Nadu government appeal against the Madras Race Club (MRC), despite objections that he had earlier passed adverse orders against the club and had represented cases against it during his tenure as a lawyer.

Presiding over a Division Bench alongside Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, Justice Subramaniam said, “A judge may recuse, on his own, from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. That would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless justified, must never be acceded to.”

The Tamil Nadu government had moved the appeal challenging an interim status quo order passed by Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on July 4, 2025.

The earlier order had restrained the government from interfering with MRC’s possession of over 140 acres of prime land in Guindy.

Though Justice Babu had reserved orders on MRC’s plea on August 18, the State preferred an appeal to expedite works for strengthening four ponds located on the property before the onset of the northeast monsoon.

Appearing for the State, senior counsel P. Wilson said the government’s intention was purely to carry out public infrastructure work and not to disturb the club’s possession beyond the scope of the earlier order.

However, senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian, assisted by advocate Vaibhav R. Venkatesh, urged Justice Subramaniam to recuse himself, arguing that the judge had, in 2023, directed the government to evict the club if it failed to pay revised rent demanded by the State.

That earlier ruling, Pandian pointed out, formed the basis of the eviction proceedings now under challenge.

He further submitted that Justice Subramaniam had represented parties against MRC in two civil suits during his practice as an advocate, creating a “real apprehension” of bias.

Rejecting these submissions, Justice Subramaniam held that recusal cannot be sought merely on “unfounded suspicion.”

He wrote: “It is not every suspicion held by a party that a judge, hearing the proceedings, is biased, that must lead to recusal. If every remark of a judge is construed as indicating prejudice, most judges will fail to pass the exacting test.”

He clarified that the decision to continue hearing the matter was “entirely mine,” and that his colleague on the Bench concurred with this view.

The Bench admitted the government’s appeal, issued notice to MRC returnable in four weeks, and modified the status quo order to allow the State to proceed with the strengthening of the ponds and other environmental works on the Guindy land.

Emphasising that such projects served public good, the judges observed that the modification was made “to ensure the continuation of works beneficial to the community without prejudice to the rights of the parties pending adjudication.”

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor