The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial body, exercises the extraordinary power of suo motu cognizance, wherein it takes up cases on its own initiative without any formal complaint or petition being filed. This unique jurisdiction allows the Court to address pressing issues of public importance, uphold constitutional rights, and ensure social justice. This article delves into the last 10 suo motu cases taken up by the Supreme Court, analyzing the legal principles, judgments, and their implications on Indian jurisprudence, along with relevant case laws.
Recently, on August 18, the Supreme Court opened a suo motu case to investigate the horrific rape and killing of a doctor that occurred recently at Kolkata’s RG Kar Hospital.
The Supreme Court heard ten well-known cases suo motu, which are listed below.
1. COVID-19 Management (In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic)
The Supreme Court, in In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic (2021), took suo motu cognizance of the challenges faced in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly focusing on the availability of oxygen, essential drugs, and vaccines. The Court emphasized that the right to health is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and directed both the central and state governments to ensure the equitable distribution of resources. The case highlighted the Court’s role in upholding fundamental rights during a public health crisis.
2. Migrant Workers’ Crisis During the COVID-19 Lockdown
In Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6/2020, the Supreme Court addressed the dire situation of migrant workers who were stranded due to the nationwide lockdown imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19. The Court directed the government to provide free food, shelter, and transportation to the migrants, emphasizing the need to protect their right to life and dignity under Article 21. This intervention was crucial in mitigating the humanitarian crisis during the lockdown.
3. Oxygen Supply Crisis During the Second Wave of COVID-19
During the second wave of COVID-19, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the oxygen supply crisis in In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic (II). The Court issued directions to the central government to ensure a continuous and adequate supply of oxygen to hospitals across the country. This case reiterated the Court’s commitment to safeguarding the fundamental right to life and holding the government accountable in crisis management.
4. Children in Protection Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance in In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Children Protection Homes (2020), addressing the safety and well-being of children in protection homes during the pandemic. The Court ordered the release of children to their families or foster care where possible, to reduce the risk of infection. This decision was grounded in the need to protect children’s rights under Article 21 and ensure their safety during the health crisis.
5. Oxygen Concentrators Black Marketing
In Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2021, the Supreme Court addressed the black marketing of oxygen concentrators and essential medical supplies amid the second wave of COVID-19. The Court’s directions aimed at curbing hoarding and profiteering, ensuring that life-saving equipment was available to those in need. This case highlighted the Court’s proactive stance in curbing illegal practices that endanger public health.
6. Judicial Vacancies in High Courts
In 2021, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the significant number of judicial vacancies in High Courts across India. The Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1/2021, sought reports from the central government and the collegium on the status of appointments and pending recommendations. The case underscored the importance of filling judicial vacancies to ensure the efficient functioning of the judiciary and the timely delivery of justice. The Court referenced the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission (2006) in its discussions on judicial appointments.
7. Environmental Protection (In Re: Air Pollution in Delhi-NCR)
The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the severe air pollution in Delhi-NCR, particularly in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986), and has continued to monitor the situation. The Court has issued numerous directions to control stubble burning, vehicular emissions, and industrial pollution, reflecting its commitment to environmental protection and the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21. The ongoing supervision of pollution control measures demonstrates the Court’s enduring engagement with environmental issues.
8. Hate Speech and Communal Violence (In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers)
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the spread of communal hate speech and its impact on the migrant labor crisis in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6/2020. The Court directed the government to take strict action against those spreading hatred, emphasizing the need to protect the rights and dignity of all citizens under Articles 14 and 21. The case also referenced Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India (2018), where the Court laid down guidelines for preventing mob violence and hate speech.
9. Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons
In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016), the Supreme Court addressed the deplorable conditions in prisons across India, focusing on overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and the rights of undertrial prisoners. The Court directed state governments to take immediate steps to improve prison conditions, emphasizing that prisoners’ rights are part of human rights under Article 21. This case demonstrated the Court’s concern for the rights of marginalized groups within the justice system and referenced earlier decisions such as Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1978).
10. Expeditious Trial of Cheque Bounce Cases
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2/2020, addressing the delays in the trial of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court issued guidelines to ensure the speedy disposal of such cases, recognizing that prolonged litigation undermines the purpose of the law and the economic interests of the parties involved. The Court’s intervention aimed at improving the efficiency of the judicial process in commercial matters, drawing from its earlier ruling in Indian Bank Association vs. Union of India (2014).
Conclusion
The suo motu power of the Supreme Court of India is a crucial tool in the judiciary’s arsenal, allowing it to address issues of public importance and uphold the fundamental rights of citizens. The last 10 suo motu cases highlight the Court’s responsiveness to crises, whether related to public health, human rights, environmental protection, or the efficient administration of justice. These cases illustrate the Court’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and its responsibility as the guardian of the rights of the people.
However, the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction also raises important questions about the balance of power between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. While the Court’s interventions are often necessary and beneficial, they must be exercised with caution to avoid encroaching on the domains of policy-making and governance, which are traditionally within the purview of the executive and legislative branches.
As the Supreme Court continues to navigate the complexities of suo motu jurisdiction, its role in shaping the contours of justice in India remains critical. The Court’s interventions in these cases have left an indelible mark on Indian jurisprudence, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a crucial pillar of democracy and a defender of the rule of law.