The Apex Court Rings Its Own Chain

Context

The article critiques the increasing use of suo motu cognisance by the Supreme Court in high-profile criminal cases, citing the recent Twisha Sharma death case. The Court initiated proceedings based on media reports and surrounding circumstances, raising concerns about institutional overreach and judicial prioritization.

---

What is Suo Motu Cognisance?

Suo motu (“on its own motion”) refers to the power of courts to initiate proceedings without a formal petition being filed by any party.

Constitutional Basis

• Article 32 – Supreme Court’s power to enforce Fundamental Rights.
• Article 142 – Power to do “complete justice.”
• Article 136 – Special Leave Petition jurisdiction.
• Article 226 – High Courts’ writ jurisdiction.
• In exceptional situations, courts have invoked these powers to address issues affecting justice and public interest.

---

Core Criticism Highlighted in the Article

The article argues that the Supreme Court increasingly prefers:

Path 1: Immediate Judicial Intervention (Easier Path)

• Taking suo motu cognisance.
• Monitoring investigations.
• Issuing directions in individual cases.
• Generates immediate public visibility.

Path 2: Institutional Reform (Harder Path)

Requires sustained efforts involving:

• High Courts under Article 235 (control over subordinate judiciary).
• State governments for infrastructure and funding.
• Executive for appointments and vacancies.
• Judicial academies for training.
• Systemic reforms in case management and supervision.

Critique: The Court often chooses the first path over the second.

---

Scholarly Criticism

Marc Galanter and Vasujith Ram

In A Qualified Hope (2019), they argued that:

• Higher courts frequently respond to failures through “heroic interventions.”
• Such interventions reflect a lack of confidence in subordinate courts.
• Judicial effort should focus more on strengthening institutions rather than intervening in individual cases.

Key Observation

Judicial legitimacy is strengthened more by improving institutions than by repeatedly stepping into individual cases.

---

Illustrative Cases

1. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012)

The Constitution Bench held that courts can issue postponement orders against media publication when:

• There is a real and substantial risk to justice.
• No less restrictive alternative exists.

Criticism: In the Twisha Sharma matter, the Court merely advised media restraint instead of invoking this established legal framework.

---

2. R.G. Kar Medical College Case

• Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance.
• Kolkata Police had already arrested the accused.
• Calcutta High Court had transferred the probe to CBI.
• Trial court later convicted the accused.

Argument: Justice was ultimately delivered by the trial court rather than Supreme Court monitoring.

---

3. Hathras Case

• Allahabad High Court had already initiated suo motu proceedings.
• Supreme Court later returned monitoring to the High Court.

Significance: High Courts are often better positioned to supervise local investigations.

---

4. Hathras Stampede

• Supreme Court declined to entertain a PIL.
• Held that the High Court was competent to handle the matter.

---

5. Manipur Viral Video Case

• Supreme Court intervened.
• However, convictions have not yet followed.

Inference: Judicial monitoring alone does not guarantee speedy justice.

---

Growing Use of Suo Motu Jurisdiction

Earlier Characterization

Galanter and Ram described suo motu powers as  “Rare but highly visible.”

Current Trend

The article argues that only the second part remains true.

Emerging Pattern

Media Attention → Public Outrage → Suo Motu Cognisance

The article suggests that judicial intervention increasingly follows media visibility.

---

Why Judicial Attention is a Scarce Resource

Key Concern

The Supreme Court cannot actively monitor every injustice occurring across the country.

Evidence

• According to NCRB data, 6,450 dowry deaths were recorded in 2022.
• Conviction rates remained low (around 11–17%).
• Thousands of cases suffer from delays and systemic weaknesses.

Implication

When judicial attention is concentrated on a few highly publicized matters:

• Many equally serious cases receive no such scrutiny.
• Systemic reforms may be neglected.
• Selection can appear influenced by media attention rather than legal significance.

---

Counter-Arguments in Favour of Suo Motu Powers

Supporters argue that suo motu jurisdiction:

• Protects Fundamental Rights where victims lack access to justice.
• Ensures accountability in exceptional situations.
• Prevents miscarriage of justice.
• Responds quickly to institutional failures.
• Strengthens public confidence in the judiciary.

Examples include environmental protection, custodial violence, and human rights cases.

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach

---

Way Forward

1. Strengthen subordinate courts through infrastructure and staffing reforms.
2. Reduce judicial vacancies at all levels.
3. Improve judicial training and case management.
4. Use suo motu powers sparingly and according to transparent criteria.
5. Empower High Courts to supervise local matters effectively.
6. Focus on long-term institutional capacity rather than case-specific monitoring.

---

UPSC Mains Question

“The increasing use of suo motu cognisance by constitutional courts reflects both judicial activism and concerns of judicial overreach.” Critically examine. (250 words, 15 Marks)

Value Addition Quote“Judicial attention is a scarce constitutional resource and must be allocated in a manner that strengthens institutions, not merely individual cases.” – Based on the observations of Marc Galanter and Vasujith Ram.