The proceedings before the Supreme Court on Wednesday have effectively let the cat out of the bag. Read plainly, the court record stands in sharp contrast to the impression sought to be created by the Bangalore Turf Club that the apex court is taking a favourable view of its case. On the contrary, the trajectory of the litigation suggests that the Club is not negotiating from a position of strength, and the endgame is already visible.

The foundational facts are no longer in dispute. The Club`s lease expired long ago. Its claim to the land was decisively rejected by the High Court, which ordered the Club to vacate the premises within six months. The Club continues to function only because the Supreme Court admitted its Special Leave Petition and ordered status quo pending final adjudication. That status quo, however, is merely a temporary procedural shield; it does not resurrect extinguished leasehold rights.

Against this backdrop, the Club has informed the Karnataka Government that it is willing to shift the race course. This communication is critical. It marks a clear departure from resistance to acceptance and implicitly acknowledges the fragility of the Club`s legal position. The Supreme Court`s recent order simply records that the Club`s proposal to vacate and hand over the premises is pending consideration with the State Government and adjourns the matter. Significantly, the Court does not endorse the proposal, approve its conditions, or issue any protective directions. The order is neutral in tone but unmistakable in effect.

The proposal itself is heavily conditional. The Club seeks a three-year relocation period commencing only after clear title is conveyed by the Government; retention of five acres at the present site to build a clubhouse and continue inter-venue and betting operations; a 30-year lease extendable by another 30 years; and tax concessions. These demands amount to an attempt to convert an inevitable exit into a negotiated settlement preserving substantial privileges.

However, Supreme Court precedent severely limits the Club`s leverage. In the Madras Race Club case, the apex court declined to interfere with the State`s takeover of the Ooty Race Course once the lease had lapsed in 1985. Crucially, it did not direct the State to provide alternate land or compensation of any kind. The principle was clear and uncompromising: once a lease expires, continuation is not a right but a matter of State discretion.

Viewed against binding precedent, the offer of alternate land at Kunigal is an act of governmental discretion, not a legal necessity. The State is free to determine the manner and terms of relocation and is not bound to accept any of the Club`s conditions on time, tenure, land retention, or fiscal concessions.

This is where the Club`s predicament becomes apparent. By placing its willingness to vacate on record, it has effectively conceded the central issue. There is no going back on that commitment. Any attempt to project the Supreme Court proceedings as indicative of judicial sympathy is belied by the record itself. The Court has not stayed eviction indefinitely, has not questioned the State`s ownership, and has not hinted at a right to compensation. It is simply awaiting the State`s decision.

The writing, therefore, is unmistakably on the wall. The Bangalore Turf Club has agreed to vacate the premises because, in law, it stands on no firm ground to insist otherwise. What remains open is not the question of shifting, which has attained finality in principle, but the extent to which the State chooses to accommodate the Club`s demands. The Supreme Court record makes one thing clear: the balance of power lies with the Government, not the Club.