Madras High Court Refuses To Stall Formula 4 Night Racing, Asks State To Conduct Race With Highest Degree Of Public Safety

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq have now dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the conduct of the race. The court noted that the State had decided to conduct the race as part of its policy decision to promote sports and had already spent huge amounts making enormous efforts for the race. The court was thus not inclined to stall the race and prevent the state from implementing its policy decision.

The court thus permitted the race to be conducted on the dates to be fixed by the State in consultation with the stakeholders. The court also directed that the race be conducted with highest regard for public safety and asked the organisers to install necessary silencing equipment for noise control and to provide necessary protective gear to the public viewers.

“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,” the court said.

Noting that one of the main contentions was against the State spending 42 crores for the race which in fact brought revenue only for the private organizers, the court directed the organizer to reimburse the State's expenditure before the conduct of the event. The court also made it clear that the organizer – Racing Promotions Private Limited (RPPL) could not expect anything except facilitation and arrangements from the State.

The court also asked the State to take it upon itself to conduct the race in the future years in furtherance of the policy to encourage racing sport and seek support from private bodies having experience and expertise.

The petitioners had challenged the race by submitting that the race, which was proposed to be conducted in some of the main streets of Chennai would result in acute inconvenience to the general public and throw the movement of traffic out of gear. The petitioners had also questioned the modifications made to the road for conducting the race and submitted that the same was without public consultation or public demand. The petitioners also questioned the environmental impact that the racing would cause and said that it interfered with the public's right to have safe and accident-free roads under Article 21.

The petitioners also contended that the state had entered into MoUs with the organizers without following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998.

The state, on the other hand, submitted that the racing was proposed to be conducted after obtaining necessary permissions and clearances from various departments. The state informed the court that it had obtained a No Objection Certificate from all the concerned stakeholders and followed all established procedures while conducting the race.

The state also informed the court that the intention behind conducting the race was to inspire and encourage youngsters to get trained through proper channels allowing them to become international or national racers and uphold the glory of the State nationally and internationally. The state added that the alleged Rs. 42 crore was spent for obtaining licenses and operating fees including laying of roads and other infrastructure.

The state further submitted that recreation was an essential part of life in a civilized society and sport was an essential requirement for developing an individual's personality.

Considering the state's stand and policy decisions, the court was thus not inclined to stall the race but laid down the conditions.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, for Mr. S.T. Bharath Gowtham, Ms. Preethika Divedi for Mr. S. Tamilselvan, Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Mr. K. Sudhakar

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Prasad Vijayakumar for R1, Mr. R. Shanmuga Sundaram Advocate General assisted by Mr. P. Muthukumar Government Pleader and Ms.A.G.Shakeenaa, Mr. Haja Nazirudeen Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Azhaguraman, Mr. D.P.R. Prabhu, Mr. Hassan Mohammed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P.R. Raman

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 75

Case Title: Dr. Shri Harish v Union of India

Case No: Writ Petition No. 33687 of 2023