'Ignores Principle Of Public-Private Partnerships' : Supreme Court Quashes HC Direction To TN Govt To Take Over Formula 4 Racing Event

Emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in contractual matters between the State and private entities, particularly in financial dealings, the Supreme Court today (February 20) set aside the Madras High Court's ruling that had modified key financial directives related to the Formula 4 racing event in Chennai.

Upholding the legitimacy of contractual agreements between the State and private entities for public benefit, the Court emphasized the growing significance of public-private partnerships (PPPs), acknowledging the State's limited resources, and the private sector's specialized expertise.

The Court struck down the High Court's directive requiring the private entity to reimburse ₹42 crores spent by the State on promoting the racing event and to deposit ₹15 crores in advance for future editions. Additionally, it nullified the order directing the Tamil Nadu Government to take over the event's organization. The Court upheld the contractual arrangement between the State Government and private entity that allows the private entity to conduct the Formula 4 racing in Chennai, with the State Government acting as a facilitator.

"The direction (vii) calling upon the State itself to take up the responsibility of conducting such sports events ignores the principle of public-private partnership adopted by governments across the globe as a matter of good governance, which takes into account the limited resources of the State coupled with issues of efficiency and expertise," the Court observed.

“Once the High Court was satisfied that the decision to hold the sports event is a matter of policy, it could not have proceeded to interfere with the specific terms of the MoU entered into between the authority and the appellant herein. Issues such as the mutual obligations, including the apportionment of expenditure that the contracting parties must bear, are beyond the scrutiny of the High Court in a public interest litigation.”, the Court added.

A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the case, which stemmed from a series of public interest litigations (PILs) filed before the Madras High Court.

The Appellant-Racing Promotions Private Ltd. (RPPL) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu (SDAT), an instrumentality of the state, to organize Formula 4 racing events in Chennai for three years.

The MoU outlined financial obligations for both parties: RPPL was to spend Rs. 202 crore, SDAT Rs. 42 crore in the first year, and Rs. 15 crore annually for the remaining two years.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Madras High Court challenging the use of public funds for the Formula 4 race, raising concerns over public inconvenience, noise pollution, and a lack of transparency in government spending. While permitting the race to proceed, the High Court, by its judgment delivered in February 2024,  imposed financial conditions on private entities and suggested that the government should independently organize future editions, prompting the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha set aside certain directives that undermined public-private contractual obligations. The Court ruled that the High Court erred in interfering with the specific terms of the MoU, such as in the matter of allocation of expenses, ordering the appellant, RPPL, to reimburse ₹42 crores and directing the State to take over the organization of future racing events.

Relevance of PPPs

The Court supported the formulation of policies by the State to ensure fair distribution of resources for the common good, without relying on its resources. Moreover, it recognized the efficiency of private entities to deliver services more effectively due to an increasing shift toward public-private partnerships (PPPs).

“To ensure equitable distribution of goods and services and to be assured that they subserve the common good, the State has the authority to formulate a suitable policy. Initially, such policy is focussed on the government identifying resources and expanding them to subserve common good. At one stage, to increase their capacity, governments had even nationalised private resources to subserve the public interest. However, experience has shown that the resources generated by the government were inadequate and also that the management of these resources was inefficient and ineffective. Over a period, the policy shifted towards public-private partnerships or private finance initiatives. The shift is based on the experience that delivery of goods and services as part of public service can be provided more effectively by means of contracting with private enterprise than by direct provision by the Government. This micro-economics, as perceived in public finance, involves private participation and it can now be seen in three strategic investments. First, where the private sector provides capital to build infrastructure, and the State leases them out. Second, where private sector participation is involved in building infrastructure such as airports, metro rail transport, bridges by using their own resources, for which they would secure their consideration through tolls and usage charges. There are also instances where assets are built partly through private contributions and partly through government funding. The rationale for this micro-economic strategy is the limited resources of the State and the understanding about their functioning as lacking flexibility, or effective expertise.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, where the Court upheld the High Court's directions regarding public safety and health but overturned the financial directions and the direction about the State running the event itself.

Case Title: RACING PROMOTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DR. HARISH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 270

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. A.D.N Rao, Sr. Adv. (Arguing Counsel) Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv. (Arguing Counsel) Ms. Theepa Murugesan, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Adv. Ms. Sanya Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. (Arguing Counsel) Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Ms. Deepa S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR