SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Racing Promotions Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Harish & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2755-2758 of 2025 Arising Out Of SLP(C) Nos. 10926-10929 of 2024
Decided on : 20-02-2025
| 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:
“22. Accordingly, this batch of writ petitions are disposed of, with the following directions
(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 General Hospital, Madras Medical College, and Omandurar Government Multi-speciality Hospital. This can be ensured by installing necessary silencing equipment like sound silence panels/acoustic sound panel for noise control in the hospitals during the time of the racing events.
(iii) The RPPL shall ensure that all public viewers will be provided with necessary protective gear for their safety during the Race
(iv) The RPPL shall reimburse the expenditure made by the State Government (i e) Rs 42 crores from the public exchequer, to them, prior to the conduct of the event
(v) The State Government must ensure that RPPL or anyone should deposit in advance (prior to next year and the upcoming third year's event) the stipulated expenditure of Rs 15 crores for the upcoming two years for holding the Street Circuit in Chennai
(vi) The RPPL cannot expect anything more than facilitation as well as arrangements along with co-ordination and co-operation of the State authorities, and the expenditure for the event will have to be completely borne out only by the RPPL
(vii) In future, the State is expected to take upon itself the responsibility of conducting of such event in furtherance of its policy to encourage the racing sport and seek the support of private bodies having experience and expertise in the field. This will ensure fairness and also dispel any doubt as to mala fides in distribution of the State largesse”
3. The directions contained in paragraphs 22(iv) to (vii) alone are impugned before us.
4. The short facts that are necessary for us are that Racing Promotion Private Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, is involved in sponsoring and conducting the Formula 4 championship, which is a motorsport series of races. The appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16.08.2023 with the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, hereinafter referred to as SDAT, for a term of three years for organising the event. The MoU sets out the obligations of both parties, and the relevant clauses are that while the appellant is under an obligation to spend Rs. 202 crores as part of its responsibility, the SDAT is required to spend Rs. 42 crores towards license and operations fee, roads, and miscellaneous expenditures including road beautification and painting. The relevant portion of the clauses are as under:
| ‘MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING’ | ||||
| This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made in Chennai on 16th day of August 2023 (“Effective Date”) by and between. A. Racing Promotions Private Limited… AND B. Sports Development Authority… 1. Principles of Collaboration 1.1 The Parties recognize each other’s interest and expertise and hereby agree to work together for the organization and promotion o | ||||
Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.
Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India
Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India
Orissa State Financial Corporation v. Narsingh Ch. Nayak
Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd v. Jagmander Singh
General Assurance Society Ltd v. Chandumull Jain
AI
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.