1. Public interest litigation challenging government permission to use a sports stadium for a non-sporting event despite a general ban on such activities. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1026
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., G.B. PATTANAIK AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.
J. Jayalalitha, Appellant
Versus
Govt. of T.N. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4990 of 1998 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16048 of 1998), D/- 24-9-1998.
Public infrastructure funded by taxpayers for a specific purpose must be preserved for that purpose. Administrative bans on non-sporting use of sports stadia should be strictly followed to prevent damage to specialized facilities, and rental income cannot justify the diversion of such assets.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Use of Public Infrastructure - Ban on conducting activities other than sports and games in sports stadia - Government's decision to grant special permission for a non-sporting event challenged - Taxpayers' money used to build international standard facilities - Such facilities should not be treated as general public spaces for hire based on convenience or rental income (Para 8).
(B) Protection of Public Assets - Necessity of maintaining natural and synthetic turfs - Use of facilities for purposes other than those intended can lead to damage and despoilation (Paras 6, 8).
Facts of the case:
A public interest litigation was filed challenging the government's decision to permit the use of a sports stadium for a non-sporting celebration, despite a long-standing government ban prohibiting the use of stadia for activities other than sports and games. The government had granted special permission for the event, which was upheld by the High Court via an interim order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the ban on non-sporting activities was necessary to preserve the international standards of the facility and protect the turf. It held that the justification of rental income is insufficient to override the purpose for which the stadium was built using taxpayers' money.
Issues: Whether a sports stadium, subject to a government ban on non-sporting activities, could be legally lent for a celebratory function.
Ratio Decidendi: Public infrastructure built with taxpayers' money for a specific purpose must be maintained for that purpose. While a one-time partial use, restricted to galleries and outside the protective fence to save the turfs, may be permitted to avoid administrative embarrassment, it does not create a precedent or right to bypass existing bans on land use (Paras 8, 9).
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the legality of granting special permission for non-sporting use of a stadium in violation of a general ban and risk of damage to turf. (Para 6 )
3. Stadiums built with taxpayer money for international standards must be maintained for their intended purpose; rental income does not justify illegitimate use. (Para 8 )
4. Public sports infrastructure must be preserved for its primary purpose; special permissions for non-sporting events should not create precedents or override general bans. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; partial use of the stadium permitted for a one-time event, restricted to galleries to protect natural and synthetic turfs. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Can a sports stadium be used for non-sporting purposes if the government grants special permission?
Generally, no. The court held that stadiums built for international standards using taxpayer money should not be treated as public places for hire and must be isolated from illegitimate use. (Para 8 )
7. Does a previous instance of non-sporting use of a public stadium create a legal precedent for future permissions?
No. The court clarified that a one-time user permission granted in the past does not create a precedent or a right for others to claim the stadium for non-sporting purposes. (Para 8 )
8. Is the generation of rental income a valid justification for permitting non-sporting activities in a specialized sports stadium?
No. The court found that the prospect of rental income is alien to the purpose for which international-standard stadia are built and does not justify violating a ban on non-sporting use. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :- Issue notice.
2. The respondents are in caveat. Shri Ashok H. Desai, learned Senior Counsel represents the first and the second respondents the State of Tamil Nadu and the Sports Development Authority respectively. Shri V. R. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents the third respondent, the Tamil Nadu Film Producers Association.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Leave granted. The matter is being disposed of finally in the following manner.
5. The minimal facts are these :
There is a Stadium known as Nehru Stadium in the city of Chennai owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu but in the care of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. Its permissible user is fairly restricted. As far back on November 9, 1982 vide G.O. Ms. No. 2481 total ban has been imposed for conducting in the said Stadium activities other than sports and games and this ban is not only applicable to the said Stadium but to other Stadia in the State as well. The imperative need of keeping the Stadium isolated from illegitimate use had further been re-enforced by D.O. Lr. No. 7646/72/91, dated February 13, 1997 whereby it has been emphasised that the instructions that Sports Stadia should not be lent for any other purpose like holding Public Meetings, Cultural Programmes, Exhibitions etc. should be scrupulously followed. Now when the present Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi is in his 71st year and the third respondent is keen to have his Platinum Jubilee celebrations, it has approached the State Government with the request that the Stadium be lent over to it on payment of certain charges for honouring the Chief Minister in the presence of a large gathering of invitees. The date proposed for the purpose is 27th September, 1998. Since the place would require a face-lift by means of decoration and otherwise, its possession is sought on 25th September, 1998. This prayer has been accepted by the concerned 2331 Secretary to the Government vide order dated 28th August, 1998 by observing as follows :
"The Government considered the said request. There is a general policy-decision to the extent that the Stadium cannot be allowed to be used other than Sports events. However, in order to raise flood relief funds at an earlier occasion it was permitted as a special permission. On the same lines to Honour the Honble Chief Minister in view of his Platinum Jubilee Celebrations as requested by the said Association, the Stadium may be handed over to them from 25-9-1998 onwards for the purposes of erection of stage, erection of arches, decorative entries apart from beautifying the stage, this special permission is granted so as to do the above and conduct the function on 27-9-1998."
6. This aroused Selvi Jayalalitha, the appellant public interest litigant herein, to question the step of the Government in ignoring the ban and permitting illegal use of the Stadium in the manner proposed and its view in letting it happen even when there was likely to be a lot of damage and despoilation to the place and in particular to the turf - natural as also synthetic, while erecting stage, arches etc. when beautifying the place. The writ petition filed by her before the Madras High Court was admitted by a Division Bench but on the prayer for interim relief, permission was granted to such user which virtually meant that the State could have its way on assurances given for the safety and ultimate upkeep of the place. That interim order is now the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. Shri Ashok Desai has placed before us a map of the Stadium which we take as part of the record. A bare look of that plan discloses that at the centre of the Stadium is a lawn or ground which has a natural turf. The same is surrounded by a synthetic turfed track shown in orange colour in oval shape. It is given out by the State that both the turfs would be permitted to be used to the minimum and that basically the audience woul
