Supreme Court’s suo motu powers: An analysis

The national dailies and all the legal news platforms were abuzz by the news of the Supreme Court taking suo motu cognizance of the rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.

A few days back, a Constitution Bench led by the Chief Justice of India took suo motu cognizance of an order passed by a single judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

So what is the ‘suo motu’ jurisdiction enjoyed by the constitutional courts of our country? Let’s analyse.

The genesis

Traditionally, courts are required to adjudicate adversarial litigation, when one party raises a dispute against the other. However, post the Emergency, the Supreme Court took up several issues that it was not seized of, matters that highlighted stories of government apathy and institutional neglect that denied vulnerable individuals or groups their fundamental rights. Thus emerged the concept of public interest litigation (PIL).

The principal of ‘suo motu’ exercise of jurisdiction - the Court’s power to initiate action on its own motion - is a jurisprudence that emanates from the Constitution of India and is developed through judicial pronouncements. This principle primarily rides on the duty of the judiciary, being the third limb of our democratic government, to protect rights guaranteed by our Constitution and the ideals enshrined in the Preamble.

If one looks closely, the exercise of suo motu or sua sponte jurisdiction, as it is also known in America, is very intrinsic and inherent to each court of law. A court of law mandatorily would, on its own motion, ascertain issues about jurisdiction to adjudicate a case before it, or, for that matter, ascertain the true characteristic of the legal issue in a case beyond the pleadings. Therefore, suo motu power finds its roots in acting judiciously and doing true justice to matter in hand.

However, the jurisdiction exercised by the top court is beyond this very basic exercise of judicious action. It is the duty of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to uphold the constitutional mandate and ensure proper administration of justice. Article 32 of the Constitution of India gives a vast power to the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. The High Courts also enjoy similar powers under Article 226 of our Constitution.

The higher courts have also exercised suo motu jurisdiction provided under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This power has been exercised to uphold the majesty of the courts in cases of interference with the course of justice, wilful disobedience of the court’s orders, or any matter that may bring disrepute to courts or the administration of justice.

Therefore, suo motu jurisprudence is a facet of PIL, under which the Supreme Court, on its own motion, can initiate action as a duty mandated by the Constitution of India.

Suo motu cases taken up by the Supreme Court

In the recent past, the Supreme Court has adopted a unique judicial approach to exercise ‘suo motu’ jurisdiction in matters involving dereliction from the constitutional mandate. From a quick study of the past cases, it can be seen that the Supreme Court has primarily exercised suo motu jurisdiction in cases of (i) humanitarian issues affecting large sections of society, (ii) serious environmental concerns, (iii) grave incidents warranting swift and authoritarian action and (iv) incidents when the Supreme Court has to protect the dignity and majesty of the court and the judiciary.

In the initial years after the Emergency, many questions arose pertaining to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction. The issues varied from the allocation of cases - whether the matter should be allotted to the particular judge who has raised the concern or placed before the Chief Justice, being the administrative head to allocate the appropriate bench; the procedure required to be followed; the immediate injunctive action required; the monitoring and supervision of the situation; or the relief that can be granted, especially considering that the issue was not yet finally adjudicated upon. But the wave of judicial activism was strong at that time, and the Supreme Court came up with sui generis, judicious, solutions to address each issue at hand.

Some of the notable cases where the Supreme Court rose to its constitutional duty are:

Humanitarian issues: The Supreme Court intervened during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure proper treatment of patients and dignified handling of dead bodies in the hospitals [(2020) 7 SCC 145]. While also monitoring the modalities of distribution of essential supplies and services during the pandemic [(2021) 18 SCC 201], the Supreme Court remarked that it cannot be a mute spectator in the face of national issues that go beyond the boundaries of a particular state.

Environmental concerns: The Supreme Court’s intervention in environmental cases has ensured effective and timely control of further degradation of the situation. In suo motu cognizance pertaining to felling of trees in Aarey forest [(2019) 9 SCC 363], the Supreme Court asked the Maharashtra government to stop cutting trees in the Aarey forest area on a letter written by a group of law students. Another notable suo motu action in this area are cases pertaining to the Delhi air pollution, where the Supreme Court has passed several orders for continuously monitoring and devising methods to curb the deteriorating air quality in Delhi.

Grave situations warranting urgent intervention: In July this year, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of sexual violence amidst the ethnic conflict in the State of Manipur. It set up a committee of three former female High Court judges to “look at diverse aspects of humanitarian nature”, including relief, remedial measures, rehabilitation measures, and restoration of homes and places of worship. Further, looking at the communal unrest and to ensure proper investigation, 11 FIRs were transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for investigation. 

The suo motu cognizance taken in the RG Kar Hospital rape and murder case is another example.

Protection of majesty of the court and the judiciary: In pure misuse of power, a judge of the Calcutta High Court sentenced the Chief Justice of India and seven other Supreme Court judges to five years of rigorous imprisonment after holding them guilty under the SC/ST Atrocities Act of 1989 and the amended Act of 2015. A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India took suo motu cognizance and sentenced the said sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court to six months of imprisonment, holding him guilty of contempt of court.

Another recent case [Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No 8 of 2024] was when a bench of five judges led by the Chief Justice of India took cognizance of an order passed by a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge. The Court, while affirming the principles governing comity between the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the apex judicial institution of the country, expunged the “random, gratuitous, and unnecessary” remarks made by the said judge.

Other notable suo motu cases pertain to cognizance for extension of limitation [(2020) 19 SCC 10] for proceedings before all courts and tribunals owing to the COVID pandemic; issuance of certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials dealing with reformation, uniformity, and clarity of procedure and practices relating to investigation, prosecution, trial, evidence and bail [(2021) 10 SCC 598]; and strategy for grant of bail in which the Court directed the National Legal Services Authority to look into cases where bail was granted but the convicts were not released [2023 SCC Online SC 483].

Over the years, as the jurisprudence of suo motu action has evolved, the role the Supreme Court has played in most of these cases is supervisory and facilitative in nature, rather than that of final adjudication. The Supreme Court has taken assistance of the High Courts, amicus curiae, specially constituted panels, or retired judges, as well as the State machinery in identifying solutions and for proper implementation to ensure complete justice.

The criticism

With the increase in the number of cases dealt with by the constitutional courts under such exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, this power and jurisdiction have often faced scrutiny. The prime criticism is judicial over-activism and intrusion by courts in executive actions in the name of public interest. The other concern pertains to the need for verification of the author and contents of news that often forms the basis of suo motu action by courts.

The main crux of the criticism seems to be the fact that when constitutional courts exercise ‘suo motu’ jurisdiction, there is a departure from the normal operation of the judicial hierarchy, or that such actions are inroads into the executive’s domain of exercise of power. To keep away from such criticism, the key necessity is to strike the right balance between, freedom to exercise executive action, conformance to legislative supremacy and adherence to judicial self-restraint, keeping in mind the democratic values of our Constitution.

Despite criticism, ‘suo motu’ action initiated by the Supreme Court has gained traction over the years. From the above indicative list, one can see that the Supreme Court has judiciously and prudently exercised the power of suo motu judicial intervention. It has exercised the utmost caution, ensuring proper verification before initiating action, and often refrained from final adjudication until proper investigation and scrutiny.

In conclusion, one can say that the Supreme Court has only intervened where it is required to step into a larger role of protector of constitutional rights and values. In fact, in many such cases, the State itself has treated the issue as a ‘joint cause’ and devised solutions to address the issue, rather than treating a suo motu petition as adversarial litigation. This is a classic example of all components of a democratic government working as a well-oiled machine.

Yugandhara Pawar Jha is an Advocate-on-Record practicing before the Supreme Court of India.