- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
J. Jayalalitha v. Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Nehru Stadium in Chennai is owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and managed by the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. Since 9-11-1982, a Government Order (G.O. Ms No. 2481) has imposed a total ban on using the Stadium—and all other State stadia—for activities other than sports and games. The ban was reaffirmed on 13-2-1997 by departmental instructions that the stadia should “not be lent for any other purpose like holding public meetings, cultural programmes, exhibitions etc.”
For the 71st birthday (Platinum Jubilee) celebrations of the then Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, the third respondent—Tamil Nadu Film Producers’ Association—requested permission to use the Stadium from 25-9-1998 to 27-9-1998. On 28-8-1998 the State Government granted “special permission,” citing an earlier flood-relief exemption as precedent.
Selvi Jayalalitha filed a public-interest writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging this permission as contrary to the standing ban and likely to damage the Stadium’s natural and synthetic turf. The High Court admitted the writ but, by an interim order, nevertheless allowed the function to proceed subject to assurances about safeguarding the Stadium. Jayalalitha appealed that interim order to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State Government could lawfully grant “special permission” to use Nehru Stadium for a non-sporting public function despite an existing blanket ban.
- Whether the Madras High Court erred in permitting such use through its interim order, given the potential damage to the Stadium and the public interest involved.
- What conditions, if any, should govern the immediate proposed use of the Stadium on 27-9-1998.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments (Selvi Jayalalitha)
- The 1982 Government Order and 1997 departmental instructions impose an absolute ban on non-sporting use; the State’s permission violates this ban.
- Allowing erection of stages, arches and other structures would damage both the natural and synthetic turf, undermining a facility built with taxpayers’ money to international standards.
- The High Court’s interim order effectively nullified the ban and enabled illegitimate use of public property.
Respondents’ Arguments (State of Tamil Nadu & Others)
- Displayed a map showing that the central lawn and synthetic track would be “minimally” used; audience seating would be confined to lower and upper galleries.
- Assured the Court that protective measures would be taken to preserve the turf and overall condition of the Stadium.
- Highlighted prior one-time exceptions (including an event during Jayalalitha’s own tenure as Chief Minister) and the collection of two lakh rupees as rental.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted the longstanding and reiterated ban on non-sporting use of State stadia, stressing that such facilities are built at significant public expense and must be preserved exclusively for sports and allied activities. The Court observed that the respondents’ justification—collection of a two-lakh-rupee rental—was “totally alien to the purpose” for which the Stadium exists.
However, to avoid “embarrassment” and practical confusion caused by invitations already issued and money already spent, the Court crafted an equitable solution. It proposed—then obtained the parties’ consent—to confine the function strictly to the Stadium’s lower and upper galleries, entirely isolating the natural and synthetic turf by prohibiting any crossing of the inner iron-meshed fence. By limiting physical access to the galleries, the Court aimed to eliminate the risk of damage while accommodating the immediate event.
The Court expressly declared that this concession is a one-time indulgence and cannot be cited as precedent. It affirmed the continuing validity of the ban and signalled that similar requests “would in no event be permitted” so long as the ban stands.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed. The High Court’s interim order and the State’s permission are modified: the Stadium may be used only once for the 27-9-1998 function, limited to the lower and upper galleries, with the turf area completely cordoned off. The Supreme Court’s order supersedes all other orders.
Implications: The blanket ban on non-sporting use of Nehru Stadium (and other State stadia) remains intact. The decision authorises a single, tightly restricted exception and explicitly bars reliance on this event as precedent for future non-sporting uses. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting public property dedicated to sports and affirms that financial gain cannot justify departures from that purpose.
1. Issue notice.
2. The respondents are in caveat. Shri Ashok H. Desai, learned Senior Counsel represents the first and the second respondents, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Sports Development Authority, respectively. Shri V.R Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, represents the third respondent, the Tamil Nadu Film Producers' Association.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Leave granted. The matter is being disposed of finally in the following manner.
5. The minimal facts are these:
There is a stadium known as the Nehru Stadium in the city of Chennai owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu but in the care of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. Its permissible user is fairly restricted. As far back on 9-11-1982 vide GOMs No. 2481, total ban has been imposed for conducting in the said stadium activities other than sports and games and this ban is not only applicable to the said Stadium but to other stadia in the State as well. The imperative need of keeping the Stadium isolated from illegitimate use had further been reinforced by DOLr No. 7646/72/91 dated 13-2-1997 whereby it has been emphasised that the instructions that sports stadia should not be lent for any other purpose like holding public meetings, cultural programmes, exhibitions etc. should be scrupulously followed. Now, when the present Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi is in his 71st year and the third respondent is keen to have his Platinum Jubilee celebrations, it has approached the State Government with the request that the Stadium be lent over to it on payment of certain charges for honouring the Chief Minister in the presence of a large gathering of invitees. The date proposed for the purpose is 27-9-1998. Since the place would require a facelift by means of decoration and otherwise, its possession is sought on 25-9-1998. This prayer has been accepted by the Secretary concerned to the Government vide order dated 28-8-1998 by observing as follows:
“The Government considered the said request. There is a general policy decision to the extent that the Stadium cannot be allowed to be used other than sports events. However, in order to raise flood relief funds at an earlier occasion, it was permitted as a special permission. On the same lines, to honour the Hon'ble Chief Minister in view of his Platinum Jubilee celebrations as requested by the said Association, the Stadium may be handed over to them from 25-9-1998 onwards for the purposes of erection of stage, erection of arches, decorative entries apart from beautifying the stage. This special permission is granted so as to do the above and conduct the function on 27-9-1998.”
6. This aroused Selvi Jayalalitha, the appellant-public interest litigant herein, to question the step of the Government in ignoring the ban and permitting illegal use of the Stadium in the manner proposed and its view in letting it happen even when there was likely to be a lot of damage and despoliation to the place and in particular to the turf — natural as also synthetic, while erecting stage, arches etc. when beautifying the place. The writ petition filed by her before the Madras High Court was admitted by a Division Bench but on the prayer for interim relief, permission was granted to such user which virtually meant that the State could have its way on assurances given for the safety and ultimate upkeep of the place. That interim order is now the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. Shri Ashok Desai has placed before us a map of the Stadium which we take as part of the record. A bare look at that plan discloses that at the centre of the Stadium is a lawn or ground which has a natural turf. The same is surrounded by a synthetic-turfed track shown in orange colour in oval shape. It is given out by the State that both the turfs would be permitted to be used to the minimum and that basically, the audience would be seated on the lower and upper galleries which are on the outer circumference of the synthetic-turfed track. The place where the rostrum was expected to be built by pre-fabricated material touches that track and has been shown in purple. The plan also reveals that there is an iron-meshed fence close to the outer circumference of the synthetic turf but at a small distance. In a manner of speaking, if we were to prohibit crossing over that fence in order to isolate both the turfs, i.e, natural as well as synthetic, much of the damage anticipated by wrong user could be avoided. In other words, the function to be held on 27th instant could be permitted to confine itself on the lower and the upper galleries without letting any person or any activity being done within the said fence.
8. We put this suggestion to learned counsel and after some persuasive discussion, looking to the sensitivity of the matter, they have agreed to such proposition. We must hasten to add that this solution came after it was made clear to the parties' counsel that in the face of the ban imposed, we saw no justification for letting out the Stadium to any person to conduct activities other than sports and games or activities subservient, ancillary, or consequential to these objects. The step we have devised is just to save embarrassment to all concerned because we are told that a lot of money has been spent in printing invitations to the invitees and as otherwise, this would lead to a lot of confusion to dignitaries who might have plans to come to participate in the celebration. We make it clear that the instance referred to in the letter of permission and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents pertaining to a one-time user of the Stadium by the present appellant when a Chief Minister, would in no event be permitted to be quoted as a precedent or creating any right in favour of anyone to ever claim the Stadium for the purposes other than those mentioned earlier so long as the ban continues and we see no reason why the ban should not continue ever after. We are told that crores of rupees have gone to erect such a Stadium which meets international standards. It goes without saying that it was the taxpayers' money which went to build the Stadium. The taxpayers have a right to its being maintained as such and not to be treated as just any other public place for being hired at convenience by anyone. The justification sought here that the State would be richer by two lakhs of rupees as rental for the day does not convince us a wee bit. That understanding is totally alien to the purpose for which stadia are built and most of all, the present one.
9. Thus, for the aforereasoning and understanding, we permit just this once, and not ever hereafter, partial use of the Stadium for holding the function confining the user only to the space occupied by the lower and upper galleries, totally isolating the area within the fence above described saving the turfs, natural as well as synthetic. To this extent, the impugned orders of the High Court as also the terms and conditions on which permission has been granted would stand modified. The order of this Court would rule over other orders.
10. The appeal is allowed in this manner and to the extent afore-indicated.
Alert