Justice SM Subramaniam of the Madras High Court recently refused to recuse from a case initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras Race Club.

Justice SM Subramaniam of the Madras High Court recently refused to recuse from a case initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras Race Club.

The Club had sought Justice Subramaniam’s recusal citing his “adverse findings” in another case involving the Club.

The judge said that if such requests were allowed, it would pave the way for forum shopping or bench hunting and would be initiating a wrong practice.

Sitting in a division bench with Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the judge observed that it was common for the judges to express opinions during the hearing, but it would not always mean that the case had been prejudiced. The court further said that if every remark of a judge were to be construed as one indicating prejudice, most judges would fail to pass the exacting test.

“ If every remark of a Judge made from the Bench or observation in an order is to be construed as indicating prejudice, it is afraid most Judges will fail to pass the exacting test. It is not uncommon for judges to express opinions, tentatively formed, sometimes even strongly in the course of hearing; but that does not always mean that the case has been prejudged,” the court said.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The club had initially filed a suit against the Government Order terminating the lease with the club. The club had also filed an interim application asking it not to be dispossessed from the suit schedule property. While hearing the suit, the single judge had ordered a status quo.

The present appeal was filed against the order of status quo. It was submitted that the order was impeding the work relating to the development and strengthening of ponds, apart from the proposed eco park. It was submitted that with the onset of the monsoon and heavy rains being predicted, the order would adversely impact the public at large.

The respondents, Madras Race Club, submitted that they had no objection and that they will not cause any obstruction to any work relating to strengthening or developing the ponds as it was in public.

During the hearing, the respondents also filed an affidavit seeking for the recusal of Justice Subramaniam. It was submitted that the judge had made observations against the club during an earlier case, which had resulted in the Government order. It was thus submitted that there was a likelihood of bias as the observations of the judge also touched upon the validity of the lease. It was also pointed out that the judge had previously represented a client in a case against the club.

The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and Another vs. Union of India (Recusal Matter), in which the court laid down principles where a judge may recuse. Firstly, if the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Secondly, if the judge has any interest other than financial, it would not be an automatic disqualification, but an enquiry is required to test whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. Thirdly, if the judge is interested in a cause that is being promoted by one of the parties to the case.

Relying on the principles, the court noted that the judge has no financial interest in the outcome of the case, and the principle would not stand. With respect to the second principle, the court noted that the observations made while disposing of the previous petition may not have any bearing nor impact the present issues.

Though the club argued that the apprehension of bias should be tested from the standpoint of the litigant, the court held that not every suspicion held by the party must lead to a recusal. The court held that the apprehension of bias must be judged from the point of view of a healthy and reasonable person and on mere apprehension of person who is whimsical.

“ Reasonable apprehension, it may be noted, must be based on cogent materials. A lawyer or a litigant should not, rather cannot, form an apprehension of bias on the basis of a remark or observation made by a Judge in course of hearing of a case or in a previous matter involving the same parties decided by the said judge / judicial officer,” the court said.
Thus, noting that the observation made in the earlier writ petition could not be a reason to recuse from hearing the appeal. The court added that there was not an indirect or remote connection between the issues, and such an argument was only a pretence to avoid the bench.

The judge thus refused to recuse from hearing the case. However, noting that the interim order of status quo would adversely affect the public interest, the court modified the order and allowed the state to carry out all works relating to strengthening/development of the pond or any other project of public interest.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr. D. Ravichander, Special Government Pleader

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Counsel for Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

Case No: O.S.A. No.335 of 2025