Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Chennai: Madras High Court judge Justice SM Subramaniam has refused to recuse from hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal against the Madras Race Club (MRC), despite objections that he had earlier passed adverse orders against the club and represented cases against it during his tenure as a lawyer.
Heading a bench with Justice Mohammed Shafiq, Justice Subramaniam said, “A judge can recuse himself from a case assigned to him by the Chief Justice. It will be a matter of his own choice. But recusing at the request of a litigant party, unless justified, should never be accepted.”
The Tamil Nadu government on July 4, 2025 appointed Justice K. An appeal was filed challenging the interim status quo order passed by Kumaresh Babu.
The earlier order had restrained the government from interfering with MRC’s occupation of over 140 acres of prime land in Guindy.
Though Justice Babu had reserved orders on MRC’s plea on August 18, the state had given priority to the plea to expedite the work to strengthen the four ponds located on the property before the onset of the northeast monsoon.
Appearing for the state, senior counsel P. Wilson said that the government’s intention was to carry out a purely public infrastructure work and not to disturb the club’s occupation beyond the scope of the earlier order.
However, senior advocate PH Arvind Pandian, assisted by advocate Vaibhav R Venkatesh, urged Justice Subramaniam to recuse himself, arguing that in 2023, the judge had directed the government to evict the club if it fails to pay the revised rent demanded by the state.
Pandian said the earlier decision formed the basis for the eviction proceedings, which is now being challenged.
He further said that Justice Subramaniam had represented parties against the MRC in two civil suits during his practice as a lawyer, giving rise to a “real apprehension” of bias.
Rejecting these arguments, Justice Subramaniam said that withdrawal from the case cannot be sought merely on the basis of “unfounded suspicion”.
He wrote: “It is not necessary for any party to suspect that a judge hearing the proceedings is biased, which would cause him to recuse. If every remark of a judge were to be considered an indication of bias, most judges would fail to pass the accurate test.”
He clarified that the decision to continue hearing the case was “completely mine” and that his colleagues on the bench agreed with this view.
The bench accepted the government’s appeal, issued notice to the MRC returnable in four weeks, and modified the status quo order to allow the state to proceed with strengthening the ponds and other environmental works on the Guindy land.
Emphasizing that such projects serve the public good, the judges said the amendment was made “to ensure the continuity of works beneficial to the community without prejudice to the rights of the parties pending adjudication”.
–IANS