Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land

“Environmental protection is not a matter of charity—it is a constitutional duty. Injunctions must not obstruct projects aimed at protecting life and mitigating floods,” ruled Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, allowing the Tamil Nadu Government to proceed with flood-mitigation and eco-restoration works.

In a landmark decision addressing the conflict between private use of public land and climate-resilient urban planning, the Madras High Court allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to proceed with the development of four ponds and an Eco Park on the premises of the Madras Race Club, setting aside a status quo order that had restrained public works.

Delivering the judgment in O.S.A. No. 335 of 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that the State’s constitutional obligations under Article 21 and Article 39(b), alongside public interest and climate imperatives, outweigh private claims over the land, especially when the land is government-owned and projects aim at flood mitigation, biodiversity, pollution control, and urban health.

“We prima facie find that there is an overarching public interest in ensuring that the projects proposed in the suit schedule property are proceeded with unhindered and unimpeded,” the Bench declared.

Status Quo Blocking Environmental Infrastructure Set Aside

The case stemmed from a suit filed by the Madras Race Club challenging a government order dated 06.09.2024, which terminated the club’s decades-old lease over 160.86 acres of prime land in Guindy, Chennai. The Single Judge had passed an interim status quo order on 04.07.2025, effectively stalling the government’s flood mitigation and eco-restoration plans.

Taking urgent note of the impending monsoon and the State's partially completed infrastructure, the Division Bench modified the order on 22.10.2025, and has now allowed the appeal in full, enabling the government to strengthen existing ponds and establish the Eco Park.

“Right to Clean Environment is Part of Article 21 — Climate Change Requires State Action, Not Judicial Delay”

The Court anchored its reasoning on the fundamental right to life under Article 21, interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. Referring extensively to the Supreme Court’s decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995), the Bench emphasized that the State has a non-delegable constitutional duty to safeguard citizens from foreseeable climate-related harms.

“Enjoyment of life and its attainment including the right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment... Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence,” the Court quoted from Virender Gaur.

“States are compelled to take effective measures to mitigate climate change and ensure that all individuals have the necessary capacity to adapt to the climate crisis,” it added, citing international obligations under the Paris Agreement and UN climate frameworks.

Flood Devastation, Public Health Crisis Demand Immediate Infrastructure

Referring to the IISc Bengaluru report titled “Chennai Floods 2015 – A Rapid Assessment”, the Court detailed the devastating effects of unplanned urbanisation, highlighting:

• 470 deaths during the 2015 floods;
• 1.8 million people displaced;
• ₹3 billion in economic losses;
• Closure of Chennai Airport and halt in industrial production;
• Loss of over 98,000 livestock and 3.8 lakh hectares of crops.

“These numbers are not abstract—they reflect the urgency of climate-resilient infrastructure,” the Court warned. “The four ponds and proposed Eco Park are not ornamental—they are essential buffers to prevent future tragedies.”

The Bench noted that four ponds had already been excavated, and the Eco Park project—which includes sponge ponds, small reservoirs, walking paths, and biodiversity zones—is aimed at flood control, groundwater recharge, air purification, and tourism.

“Eco Park is intended to serve multiple purposes... including improving air quality, reducing AQI levels, and creating green lungs in the urban sprawl. In a city like Chennai, this is not luxury, it is survival.”

Article 39(b) and Public Trust Doctrine — Private Use Cannot Override Common Good

In a strong affirmation of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the Court held that Article 39(b) mandates the State to distribute material resources to best subserve the common good.

“Land is a scarce commodity, especially in a metropolitan city like Chennai. Permitting private individuals to hold onto 160 acres of public land for horse racing—when the same can serve millions—would fall foul of the doctrine of public trust,” the Court said.

The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai (1984) and Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) to reinforce that public resources must be used to benefit the many, not the privileged few.

Injunctions Must Not Block Public Works — Cost of Delay Cannot Be Ignored

Warning against mechanical grant of injunctions, the Court quoted from Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) and Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (1996):

“An interim order should not be granted without considering balance of convenience, public interest, and financial impact. If a project is ultimately found lawful, the delay caused by interim orders causes irreversible public detriment.”

The Court went further to caution that:

“Interim orders that stop public projects must make adequate provision for reimbursement of costs to the public, in case the litigation fails. Without such safeguards, injunctive relief becomes counterproductive.”

Supreme Court Observations and Clarification: No Bar to Proceeding

The Bench also addressed arguments raised by the Race Club regarding a Special Leave Petition it had filed. The Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere, had clarified that the State could proceed with public interest works related to ponds and the Eco Park, subject to final outcome.

“We do not find any bar to hearing this appeal,” the Division Bench stated, clarifying that the Supreme Court’s directive to expedite the matter had not precluded the High Court from deciding the interim issue.

Appeal Allowed — State Can Proceed with All Environmental Projects

Concluding that the order of “status quo” hindered vital public interest, the Court allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction:

“The order of ‘status quo’ dated 04.07.2025 is set aside. The State is permitted to carry out all works related to strengthening/development of ponds and Eco Park. Public interest and constitutional obligations demand no less.”

The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed, bringing an end to the interim dispute but not the main suit.

Key Takeaways:

• State’s environmental and climate resilience obligations are enforceable under Article 21.
• Public resources, especially land, must serve the many—not privileged recreational uses.
• Courts must avoid injunctions that delay public infrastructure, especially in climate-vulnerable urban contexts.
• Interim relief must balance individual rights with environmental imperatives and community good.

Date of Decision: 25 November 2025