What happened in last 10 suo motu cases before Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on August 18 registered a suo motu case to look into the recent gruesome rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata's RG Kar Hospital..With the Calcutta High Court already having transferred the investigation in the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), it remains to be seen how the apex court can ensure speedy justice in the matter..The power of the Supreme Court to take up any issue on its own is an offshoot of its PIL (Public Interest Litigation) jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution and can be traced to Article 142. As per this provision, the Court can pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.Over the years, the apex court has said that it needs to be circumspect in assuming its extraordinary jurisdiction given that High Courts have wide powers under writ jurisdiction and are more aware of local developments and issues peculiar to the concerned state.While the Court has spoken on the need to tread cautiously when it comes to exercising its suo motu jurisdiction to deal with issues of public interest, it has registered 46 such cases between 1990 and 2021.From the COVID-19 migrant worker crisis to the Manipur riots issue, the top court has not shied away from stepping in and having its say on pressing issues affecting the country and the legal fraternity.Below are ten recent matters which the Supreme Court took up and heard suo motu. .Punjab and Haryana High Court judge's criticism against Supreme Court.In an order passed on July 17, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had said that the Supreme Court has no role in interfering with contempt of court proceedings pertaining to an order passed by the High Court.More caution on the part of the Supreme Court would have been more appropriate, the judge had said.Justice Sehrawat had also stated that the apex court tends to consider itself as more “Supreme” than it actually is and views High Courts as being less “high” than they are constitutionally..These remarks did not sit well with Supreme Court, which registered the matter suo motu.A five-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy expressed its dismay over the observations made by the High Court judge.Even as it observed that Justice Sehrawat’s comments border on contempt, it did not initiate contempt proceedings against the judge.The Bench proceeded to expunge the remarks of the judge from the order and closed the matter..UPSC aspirants' deaths.A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan initiated a suo motu case on August 5, 2024 to examine the deaths of the three Indian Administrative Services (IAS) aspirants who drowned after rainwater flooded the basement of a coaching centre in Delhi's Old Rajendra Nagar. .The Supreme Court sought replies from the Central and Delhi governments on safety norms being followed to avoid such incidents. It noted,“Safety norms require proper ventilation, safety passage, air and light, fire safety norms and such other requirements prescribed under law.” There has been no further hearing in the case so far. .Assault on Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia.A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took suo motu cognisance of the assault on Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia and Advocate Muskan Gupta at a Greater Noida Court in March 2024. Bhatia is a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and earlier served as Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association. His bands were reportedly snatched inside a district court in Noida where lawyers were observing a strike.This led to an urgent mentioning of the matter by Attorney General R Venkataramani, as well as Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, KK Venugopal and Jayant Bhushan..When it took up the issued, the Bench said that the manhandling of two members of the Supreme Court Bar Association is a serious matter which warrants the interference of the Court.It issued notice to the President of Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida) Bar Association and also directed the District Judge of Gautam Budh Nagar to ensure that the CCTV footage of the incident is in safe custody pending further orders.There has been no further hearing in this case so far. .Exclusion of visually impaired candidates from Madhya Pradesh judicial service.A Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on March 7, 2024 took suo motu cognisance of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules which exclude visually impaired candidates from seeking appointment in the State's judicial service..The Bench on March 21 permitted visually impaired candidates who achieved the minimum qualifying marks, to participate in the main examination for Civil Judge Class-II in Madhya Pradesh.The top court also allowed visually-impaired candidates to submit their roll numbers from the preliminary examination along with their marks and certificates via email. Candidates requiring specific accommodations in terms of lighting during the main examination were directed to indicate their needs to the High Court. Further, the Court directed that arrangements must be made to provide a scribe for each visually impaired candidate during the main examination, with additional time of 20 minutes per hour.The case was closed after these directions were passed..Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay v. Justice Soumen Sen.In January 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose took suo motu cognisance of a major controversy that erupted in the Calcutta High Court after a single-judge took objection to a division bench's decision. .While dealing with a case of alleged irregularities in the admission of MBBS candidates in State-run medical colleges and hospitals, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay termed a division bench order passed by Justices Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar as "illegal".However, instead of passing any diktat against the single-judge, the Supreme Court transferred the matter from the Calcutta High Court to itself. The Bench while parting with the case had observed that "casting aspersions on single judge or division bench would not be proper. Anything we say will have effect on impinging the dignity of the High Court."Post this development, there has been no further hearing in the matter..Termination of six women judges.The Supreme Court on January 12 this year took suo motu cognisance of the termination of six women judges by the Madhya Pradesh government..A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol took suo motu cognisance of the case after an application was filed by one of the sacked judges. The applicant stated that despite having an unblemished service record for four years and without any adverse remarks or observations against her, she was illegally terminated without any due process of law. The terminated judge contended that if the period of her maternity as well as child care leave is taken into consideration in the quantitative work assessment, it will cause grave injustice. The case saw some progress only after six months, when on July 24, the Bench of Justices Nagarathna and N Kotishwar Singh requested the full court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reconsider the cases of these judicial officers. The Bench stated that after reconsideration, a copy of resolution of the High Court should be placed before the Supreme Court, preferably within a month. .Possession and use of unlicensed firearms in Uttar Pradesh.In February last year, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna took suo motu cognisance of the possession and use of unlicensed firearms in Uttar Pradesh. The Court was initially hearing a bail plea by a 73-year-old man accused of shooting a person dead..The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit on the number of cases registered for the possession and use of unlicensed firearms. Additionally, it also sought for the State’s stand on the steps taken to tackle this issue. Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu was appointed as amicus curiae in the case. In November 2023, the amicus informed the Court that proliferation of illegal arms and ammunition has assumed “alarming” proportions in some states" and that bail provisions for such offences need to be made stringent.The Central government also proposed some steps to curb the use of illegal firearms that include digitally linking arms manufacturers and dealers, besides maintaining online record of ballistic reports to aid in criminal investigations. The case is still pending before the top court. .Calcutta High Court order asking adolescent girls to control sexual urges.The top court in December 2023 initiated a suo motu case in the wake of a Calcutta High Court ruling that had called for adolescent girls to "control" their sexual urges instead of "giving in to two minutes of pleasure"..The Supreme Court in January remarked that the order sends wrong signals.A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also briefly raised concerns about the manner in which judges were invoking their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in making such observations.The High Court had voiced concerns over the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) conflating consensual acts among adolescents with sexual abuse and called for decriminalising consensual sexual acts involving adolescents above 16 years. It proposed a 'duty/obligation based approach' for teenagers and suggested that adolescent females and males have different duties.The Supreme Court took objection High Court's observations. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan was appointed amicus curiae in the matter.The judgment in the matter will be pronounced on Tuesday, August 20..Manipur violence.The Court is seized of a batch of pleas related to the outbreak of violence in Manipur.In one of these, the Central government had ordered a probe by the CBI into the viral video of women being paraded naked, after the top court had taken it up suo motu..During the hearing of the matter on August 1 last year, the Court had castigated the authorities and the State Police over their apparent failure to control the law and order situation that unfolded in Manipur.It thus constituted an all-woman judicial committee headed by retired Justice Gita Mittal to examine the probe being conducted into the violence.The committee later submitted a report in which it suggested that the compensation to be paid to victims of violence should be enhanced.The all-woman panel's timeframe was recently expanded and the matter will be heard next on the aspect of compliance. .Delayed pension of former Bombay High Court staff members.The Supreme Court in April 2023 initiated suo motu proceedings after former employees of the Bombay High Court Registry wrote to CJI Chandrachud claiming that they had not received pensionary benefits even after three to seven years of retirement..The CJI was informed that a former High Court employee whose pension was delayed had died by suicide due to mental stress.The Supreme Court issued notice to the Registrar General of the High Court, but the matter has not seen any substantial hearings since.However, pursuant to one of the apex court's directions in the matter, the pension rules for staff at the High Court's Goa Bench were notified.