Mrc club case Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan was dealing with a plea filed by Madras Race Club (MRC), represented by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, challenging the Division Bench order of October 22 which modified an interim direction of status quo pronounced by a Single Judge of the High Court on July 4.
[31/10, 07:42] Sekarreporter: HamberMenu
Home
News
India
Tamil Nadu
Madras Race Club case: Supreme Court declines to interfere with High Court Division Bench order
However, the apex court restricted the State from creating ‘permanent structures’ on the property beyond what was required for an eco-park
Updated – October 30, 2025 08:37 pm IST – NEW DELHI
Krishnadas RajagopalKrishnadas Rajagopal
A view of the Madras Race Club. File | Photo Credit: R. Ragu
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 30, 2025) refused to interfere with a Madras High Court Division Bench order while clarifying that Tamil Nadu should only carry out works required for the eco-park on the Madras Race Club grounds, subject to final decision.
Advertisement
Advertisement
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan was dealing with a plea filed by Madras Race Club (MRC), represented by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, challenging the Division Bench order of October 22 which modified an interim direction of status quo pronounced by a Single Judge of the High Court on July 4.
On September 6 last year, the Tamil Nadu government had issued an order prematurely terminating the 99-year-long lease given to the MRC in 1946 for 160.86 acres of land at Guindy in Chennai.
High Court judge refuses to recuse from hearing Madras Race Club case
The club had instituted a suit against the State against the termination of the lease and had sought the relief of a permanent injunction against eviction. The Single Judge had granted an interim relief of status quo. On August 18, it reserved orders on the MRC’s application to restrain the government from interfering with its possession.
The State government, represented by senior advocate P. Wilson, did not relent but challenged the interim order of status quo in an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The State had argued that the operation of order of status quo would impede the works relating to development and strengthening of ponds as flood-control and rainwater preservation measures in public interest, apart from the proposed eco-park.
NGT temporarily halts development on 118-acre Madras Race Course land reclaimed by the government
In response, the Division Bench had modified the status quo order of the Single Judge and permitted the “State to carry out all works relating to strengthening/development of pond and any other project of public interest and the club shall cooperate and not obstruct such work”. On Thursday, the Supreme Court, in a petition filed by the MRC, clarified that this portion of the Division Bench order of October 22 would only extend to creating what was required for the eco-park, and no more.
The apex court Bench further asked the Division Bench to dispose any applications in the case expeditiously.
Why can’t Madras Race Club land be developed as waterbody, NGT asks Tamil Nadu government
During the hearing, Mr. Subramanium, for MRC, submitted that the club had volunteered for the complete development of the four ponds situated on 80 acres of the 160-acre premises, but the Division Bench had expanded the scope to include “other project” in its October 22 order. He said it was “perplexing” to have a direction for status quo modified by the Division Bench in an appeal when the Single Judge had already reserved for orders. He said it was “distressing” to note that one of the judges on the Division Bench, who had refused to recuse from hearing the case, had passed adverse orders against the club in 2023, and upheld an upward revision of rent to be realised from MRC. The judge had also appeared as a lawyer against the MRC.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and AM Singhvi, appearing for the government along with Mr. Wilson, termed MRC’s submissions against the judge “an unfair accusation” Mr. Singhvi said the “other project of public interest” mentioned in the October 22 order was the eco-park in question.
Tamil Nadu government’s bid to dispossess Madras Race Club in 1986
“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 explained.
Mr. Wilson highlighted that the development of the four ponds would act as a crucial buffer against flooding in four areas, including Velachery, Medavakkam, Alandur, and Madipakkam, during heavy rains.
[31/10, 07:43] Sekarreporter: ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31175/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-10-2025 in OSA No. 335/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras] MADRAS RACE CLUB Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 274471/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 274470/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 274467/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 274472/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES
Date : 30-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Venkatesh, Adv.
Ms. Gauri Subramanium, Adv.
Mr. K. Shiva, AOR Mr. Akash Srinanda, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Sriram, Adv.
Mr. Jayavardhan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Adnan Yousuf, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P.Wilson, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. K.s.badhirnathan, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
1 of 2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we clarify that the portion in paragraph no. 25 which reads, “…permit the State to carryout all works relating to strengthening/development of pond and any other project of public interest and the respondent club shall co-operate and not obstruct such work…..” shall entitle the respondent(s)-State only to create what is required for the ecopark, and will be subject to final decision.
3. The Division Bench of the High Court shall endeavour to dispose of the application(s) expeditiously.
4. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSTT. REGISTRAR(NSH)
2 of 2
