In a notable decision, Madras High Court Justice S.M. Subramaniam has stood firm, declining to withdraw from hearing an appeal initiated by the Tamil Nadu government against the Madras Race Club (MRC). This refusal comes despite concerns raised by the club, citing the judge’s previous unfavorable rulings in a separate case and his past professional roles as a lawyer representing parties against the MRC.
Justice Subramaniam, presiding over a Division Bench alongside Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, emphasized his stance in his written order: “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.” This statement underscores his belief that a judge’s withdrawal should be a personal decision, not forced by a litigant’s request without strong grounds.
The State government’s appeal challenges a status quo order issued by Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on July 4, 2025. Justice Babu had, on August 18, 2025, reserved his judgment on the MRC’s request to prevent the government from interfering with its extensive 140-acre property in Guindy, Chennai.
Senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the government, informed the Division Bench that despite the single judge having reserved orders on MRC’s initial application, the State had decided to appeal the earlier status quo order. The government’s stated aim was to facilitate urgent work, specifically the strengthening of four ponds located on the club’s land, prior to the upcoming monsoon season.
Conversely, senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian, supported by Vaibhav R. Venkatesh, formally requested Justice Subramaniam’s recusal from the State’s appeal. The basis for this request stemmed from Justice Subramaniam’s previous adverse rulings against the club in a 2023 case concerning the government’s demand for overdue, exorbitant rental payments.
In that earlier dispute, Justice Subramaniam had issued a directive instructing the Tamil Nadu government to evict the MRC from its sprawling Guindy premises and assume possession of the land, with police assistance if necessary, should the club fail to settle the revised rent demanded by the authorities.
Mr. Pandian argued that the government’s current eviction proceedings, which the MRC had challenged before Justice Babu, directly relied on Justice Subramaniam’s earlier order from the rental dispute. Therefore, he contended that an appeal stemming from these proceedings should not be heard by Justice Subramaniam while sitting on a Division Bench, given the potential for perceived conflict of interest.
Furthermore, the senior counsel highlighted that Justice Subramaniam had previously acted as a lawyer against the MRC in two different civil suits. This history, Mr. Pandian asserted, created a genuine concern within the club regarding potential prejudice and bias, which could compromise the neutrality of the adjudication in the State’s appeal.
However, Justice Subramaniam firmly dismissed the recusal request. He 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.” This statement reinforced his position that mere suspicion is insufficient for a judge to step aside.
He further clarified, “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.” This emphasized the independent nature of his decision, albeit with consultation.
Subsequently, the Bench accepted the State’s appeal and issued a notice to the MRC, requiring a response within four weeks. Crucially, through an interim order, the Bench also modified the single judge’s original status quo order. This modification grants the State government permission to proceed with strengthening the four ponds and undertaking any other public interest projects on the land in question.
The Division Bench’s interim order stated: “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,” clearly prioritizing public interest projects.