While it remains a critical tool for courts to intervene in urgent and extraordinary matters, its growing invocation in cases already under the jurisdiction of lower courts, or where political motivations are perceived to influence decisions has raised an alarm. Such practices risk fostering public cynicism vis-a-vis the justice system.
This not only creates a sense of redundancy, but also delays the resolution of cases. In the instance of the tragic rape and murder of a trainee doctor in RG Kar Medical College, Kolkata, the Supreme Court’s intervention came after significant steps had already been taken by the Calcutta high court, leading to questions about the necessity of its involvement at that stage.
Such actions risk overshadowing the work of high courts, which are closer to the ground and better placed to handle region-specific issues. When higher courts assert control over matters already in progress, unless it suspects some engineered delays, it can create jurisdictional tensions that tend to detract from the effectiveness of the overall judicial system.
The downside of suo motu powers lies in the courts’ inability to follow through effectively on their interventions. For instance, the Supreme Court’s suo motu cognisance of the covid crisis reflected an acknowledgment of the urgency of protecting the people’s right to health, a key component of the Fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
While the apex court’s intervention initially raised hopes and directed attention to systemic gaps in healthcare, its subsequent lack of concrete results highlighted the limits of judicial intervention in complex, real-time crises. Prolonged judicial engagement without results undermines faith in the judiciary’s effectiveness.
Another illustrative case is the pollution of the Yamuna river. Despite an initial intervention in 1994, the matter took more than two decades to be transferred to the country’s National Green Tribunal. This delay in addressing one of the most significant environmental challenges in India demonstrates a key weakness of the suo motu approach.
While it might draw attention to critical issues, the prolonged inaction often associated with these cases leads to a sense of frustration and disillusionment with the judicial process. This is particularly problematic in a country where environmental degradation, social injustice and governance failures demand swift, balanced and decisive judicial responses.
While the judiciary’s invocation of suo motu powers in cases of grave concern is commendable, the enforcement of such interventions often reveals significant gaps that dilute their impact.
For instance, in the Supreme Court’s recent suo motu cognisance of sexual violence amid an ethnic conflict in Manipur, the establishment of a committee and transfer of cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reflected a welcome acknowledgment of the crisis this north-eastern state is in.
However, challenges in implementation exposed systemic weaknesses. Rehabilitation measures and the restoration of communal harmony, as mandated, remain slow and insufficient, leaving victims in prolonged distress.
These shortcomings highlight the need for robust mechanisms to ensure judicial directives are effectively implemented, so justice extends beyond courtrooms to those who need it most.
The Supreme Court’s exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution often ventures into the territory of judicial overreach. For example, in the Ramlila Maidan incident, the apex court not only addressed the violation of peaceful assembly rights, but also created a new Fundamental Right to Sleep under Article 21.
While this is progressive, such expansive interpretations blur the judicial domain’s boundaries. Additionally, the top court’s tendency to take cognisance of matters without a clear basis, as seen during the covid pandemic, raises questions about its role and the potential usurpation of high court jurisdictions.
High courts, with their proximity to regional issues, offer more cost-effective and timely responses to many legal challenges. Their ability to manage cases efficiently without the Supreme Court’s overburdened docket makes them better equipped to handle local matters, ensuring a more balanced and equitable judicial process overall.
In conclusion, while the courts’ suo motu powers are an essential tool for ensuring justice and safeguarding the public interest, their injudicious use can have serious consequences. Intervening in cases that are already under process or raising expectations without providing effective solutions only puts public trust in the judiciary at needless risk.
To maintain its integrity and uphold the rule of law, the judiciary must invariably exercise its suo motu powers judiciously, with a clear focus on delivering justice in a timely and effective manner.
Ideally, the Supreme Court should frame guidelines for dealing with such matters both for itself and our high courts. The exercise must also provide a feedback mechanism to check if the same has been followed properly. Such a step will aid the cause of judicial credibility and effectiveness.
The authors are, respectively, vice president of Pune International Centre and secretary general of CUTS International.
Pragya Tiwari and Anushka Kewlani of CUTS contributed to this article.
