High Court judge refuses to recuse from hearing Madras Race Club case

Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court has refused to recuse from hearing an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Madras Race Club (MRC) though he had passed adverse orders against the club in another case, besides having appeared against the club in two cases during his stint as a lawyer.

“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 senior judge wrote, while presiding over a Division Bench, along with Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.

The State had filed the appeal against a status quo order passed by Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on July 4, 2025, before the latter, on August 18, 2025, reserved orders on MRC’s plea to restrain the government from interfering with its possession of over 140 acres of land at Guindy in Chennai.

Senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the government, told the Division Bench that though the single judge had reserved orders on MRC’s application, the government had now chosen to file an appeal against his previous status quo order to strengthen four ponds, located on the land, before the monsoon.

On the other hand, senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian, assisted by Vaibhav R. Venkatesh, requested Justice Subramaniam to recuse from hearing the State appeal as he had passed adverse orders against the club in 2023 in a case related to the demand of exorbitant rental arrears by the government.

In that case, Justice Subramaniam had directed the Tamil Nadu government to evict MRC from the sprawling Guindy property and take possession of the land, with the assistance of the police department, if the club fails to pay the revised rent as demanded by the government.

It was relying upon that order passed in the rental dispute that the government had initiated eviction proceedings, which had been challenged by MRC before Justice Babu. Therefore, an appeal arising out of these proceedings could not be heard by Justice Subramaniam sitting in a Division Bench, Mr. Pandian argued.

He also said, the senior judge in the Bench had appeared against MRC in two different civil suits during his stint as a lawyer and hence, there was a real apprehension in the club’s mind that there could be a great element of prejudice and bias impacting the neutrality of adjudication in the State appeal.

However, rejecting the request for recusal, Justice Subramaniam wrote: “It is not every suspicion held by a party that a judge, hearing the proceedings, is biased must lead to recusal. If every remark of a judge… is to be construed as indicating prejudice, it is afraid most judges will fail to pass the exacting test.”

He went on to state: “I must make it clear that the decision not to recuse but proceed to hear the matter was entirely mine. Though, I must state on discussion with my collegue, on the Bench, he would also agree that I should not recuse from hearing the matter.”

The Bench admitted the State appeal and ordered notice, returnable in four weeks, to MRC. In the meantime, by way of an interim order, it also modified the single judge’s status quo order and permitted the State government to strengthen the four ponds and proceed with any other project of public interest on the land.

“It is not in dispute that the strengthening/development of ponds and eco park are infrastructure projects sought to be implemented by the government in larger public interest. In view thereof, the order of status quo stands modified as provided supra,” the Division Bench’s interim order read.