In a significant ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court opted not to challenge a Madras High Court Division Bench order. This order permits the Tamil Nadu government to proceed with projects aimed at developing four ponds within the Madras Race Club grounds, citing public interest. However, the apex court imposed a crucial restriction, forbidding the state from erecting any ‘permanent structures’ on the land that are not essential for the creation of an eco-park.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan deliberated on a petition filed by the Madras Race Club. Represented by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, the club contested the Division Bench’s October 22 order, which had modified an earlier interim ‘status quo’ directive issued by a Single Judge of the High Court on July 4.
The roots of the dispute trace back to September 6, 2024, when the Tamil Nadu government prematurely ended a 99-year lease granted to the Madras Race Club in 1946. This lease covered 160.86 acres of land located in Guindy, Chennai.
Following this, the club initiated a lawsuit against the state, seeking a permanent injunction against their eviction. The Single Judge had initially granted an interim ‘status quo’ relief. On August 18, the judge reserved orders on the club’s plea to prevent the government from interfering with its possession of the land.
However, the state government, with senior advocate P. Wilson representing them, did not back down. They challenged the interim ‘status quo’ order before a Division Bench of the High Court. The state argued that maintaining the ‘status quo’ would hinder vital work related to strengthening and developing the ponds for flood control and rainwater preservation, which are crucial public interest measures, in addition to the proposed eco-park.
Responding to these arguments, the Division Bench modified the Single Judge’s ‘status quo’ order. It authorized the state ‘to carry out all works relating to strengthening/development of pond and any other project of public interest’ and mandated the club to cooperate without obstruction.
On Thursday, addressing a petition from the Madras Race Club, the Supreme Court clarified that the phrase ‘and any other project of public interest’ within the Division Bench’s October 22 order does not grant the government carte blanche to ‘create permanent structures.’ Such constructions, the Supreme Court asserted, ‘shall not be more than what is required for an eco-park.’
The apex court further stated that the Madras Race Club is entitled to request additional modifications. It also instructed the Single Judge, who had reserved orders on August 18, to make a decision on the club’s application, ensuring it remains uninfluenced by the observations made by the Division Bench.
During the hearing, Mr. Subramanium, representing the Madras Race Club, highlighted that the club had voluntarily offered to undertake the full development of four ponds across 80 acres of the 160-acre premises. He expressed ‘perplexity’ that the Division Bench’s October 22 order expanded the scope to include ‘other projects,’ especially when the Single Judge had already reserved orders. Subramanium also voiced ‘distress’ over one of the Division Bench judges, who had previously refused to recuse from the case, having issued adverse orders against the club in 2023, including upholding an increased rent. He noted that this particular judge had also acted as a lawyer against the Madras Race Club in the past.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and A.M. Singhvi, representing the government alongside Mr. Wilson, dismissed the Madras Race Club’s allegations against the judge as an ‘unfair accusation.’ Mr. Singhvi clarified that the ‘other project of public interest’ referred to in the October 22 order was indeed the eco-park. He emphasized, ‘We are not making any commercial buildings or government offices. Tenders are for a fantastic eco-park on the lines of Japanese gardens.’
Mr. Singhvi urged the Supreme Court to avoid using the term ‘permanent structures,’ fearing it could expose the state to contempt charges even for constructing a bridge within the eco-park. This prompted the Bench to clarify in its order that any permanent structures built must be limited and integral to the eco-park’s design.
Mr. Wilson underscored the critical importance of developing these four ponds, explaining that they would serve as essential buffers against flooding in vulnerable areas like Velachery, Medavakkam, Alandur, and Madipakkam during periods of heavy rainfall.