Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Racing Promotions Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Harish – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeals (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. concerns raised in writ petitions (Para 6) |
| 3. high court's stance on policy (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's reasoning on directions (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. outcome of the appeals (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of an order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Madras High Court disposing of various writ petitions filed as public interest litigations (‘PILs’) against the conduct of Formula 4 racing in the city of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, in which the following directions were issued:
(i) The Formula 4 Race proposed to be conducted in the Chennai Racing Circuit is permitted to be held on the dates to be decided by the State Government in consultation with the stakeholders
(ii) The State Government shall ensure that the street race in the 3.7 km as stipulated, shall be carried on, with highest degree of public safety and avoiding inconvenience to the public, especially the in-patients of the Rajiv Gandhi Government G
The court affirmed the validity of public-private partnerships in organizing sporting events, emphasizing limited judicial review in contractual matters between the State and private entities.
Courts may decline to intervene in disputes perceived as smokescreens for settling grievances, and sports event organizers are responsible for ensuring safety measures.
State-sponsored events necessitate lawful proceedings and appropriate oversight in inquiry to preserve public confidence and accountability.
The court emphasized the need for accountability in public contracts, allowing judicial review to ensure fairness and public interest, while directing a CBI inquiry into irregularities in the Sports ....
Judicial review in sports policy matters is limited to cases of evident arbitrariness; courts should defer to the expertise of selection committees unless clear injustice is demonstrated.
The Court ruled that allocation of public funds for the 'Nava Keralam Programme' violated constitutional mandates as it lacked legislative sanction and contravened the Rules of Business.
A public interest litigation cannot be used by a petitioner who previously supported the actions being challenged, as it constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
