Between 1991 and 2024, the Supreme Court has exercised its suo motu jurisdiction in over 65 cases. Over the years, it has invoked this authority in several landmark matters involving public interest, social justice, and fundamental rights. Notable examples include the Kolkata hospital rape case, the deaths of children in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and the plight of migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recently, the news of the Supreme Court taking suo motu cognizance of the tragic rape and murder of a doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College and Hospital and also in another instance, a Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India exercised its suo motu jurisdiction to review an order passed by a single judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Both of these cases garnered significant attention in both national dailies and legal news platforms.
“The work of the judiciary is that the check and balance must be maintained. Checks and balances, sometimes, are to restrict the Government from embarking on certain paths.”
–Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on being appointed a member of the Bahrain International Commercial Court
This , makes it significant for us, to know what is suo-motu cognizance and what were the cases of which the Supreme Court took suo-motu cognizance that drew attention across the country.
SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE
Originally, the courts handles cases where one party brings a dispute against another, known as adversarial litigation. However, after the Emergency , the Supreme Court began addressing issues it was not formally asked to consider. These cases often revealed government negligence or institutional failures that violated the fundamental rights of vulnerable groups.
The idea of suo motu jurisdiction—where the court acts on its own without a formal petition—stems from the Constitution of India and has evolved through judicial decisions. This concept is based on the judiciary’s duty, as an essential pillar of democracy, to safeguard constitutional rights and uphold the principles outlined in the Preamble.
Suo Motu, meaning “on its own motion,” refers to actions taken by a government agency, court, or other authority on its own initiative, without a formal request from any party involved.
In India, the provisions for filing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court and High Courts are outlined in Article 32 (Remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights) and Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue writs) of the Constitution. These provisions have empowered the courts to initiate legal proceedings on their own when they recognize a significant issue.
The concept of suo motu originates from the Indian Constitution and has been further developed through judicial interpretations. It reflects judicial activism and demonstrates the courts’ commitment to ensuring timely justice.
In 2014, the process for initiating suo motu petitions was formally codified under Order 38, Rule 12(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
WHEN CAN COURT TAKE SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE
The process of suo motu cognizance can be taken in the following cases :
- Identification of Issue: Recognizing matters requiring immediate attention, often through media reports or letters (e.g., Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980), based on a letter about prisoner rights violations).
- Notification to Parties: Issuing notices to concerned authorities or individuals (e.g., Aarey Case (2019), where the SC acted on a law students’ letter and halted tree cutting).
- Request for Responses: Seeking explanations or actions from relevant parties (e.g., 2024 NGT case, requesting States and UTs to address non-compliance with environmental laws).
- Formation of Committees: Establishing investigative panels when needed (e.g., Kolkata rape-murder case (2024), creating a task force for medical professionals’ safety).
- Issuance of Orders: Delivering directives or judgments to resolve issues (e.g., Mid-Day Meal Scheme case (2013), issuing food safety guidelines for schools).
SUPREME COURT AND SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE IN 2024 AND OVER THE YEARS
In 2024, the Supreme Court invoked its suo motu jurisdiction in 12 cases, marking the highest number since its inception. These cases are initiated by the Court on its own accord, often prompted by news reports, academic studies, or letters from concerned citizens. Generally, the Court employs its suo motu powers selectively.
This year, the Court has shown an increased willingness to position itself as an institution prepared to address pressing issues of the moment and uphold its role as the guardian of judicial integrity.
According to the data collected, over the past 20 years , the Supreme Court has invoked suo motu jurisdiction 66 times, with more than 50% of these cases (35) initiated in the last five years.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court 2025: Leadership Shifts, Key Retirements & Major High-Profile Pending Cases
SUO MOTU CASES IN 2020
Total suo motu cases: 10
Criminal matters (2):
- Involvement of children in the Shaheen Bagh protests.
- Need for expeditious trial of cheque bounce cases.
Civil matters (8) related to the pandemic COVID-19:
- Access to justice and court functioning during the pandemic.
- Financial aid for members of the Bar.
- Closure of Mid-Day Meal Schemes.
- Safety of migrant laborers, prisoners, and children in protection homes.
- Dignified handling of patients and deceased bodies.
SUO MOTU CASES IN 2021
Total suo motu cases: 8
- Pandemic-related cases (3):
- Access to essential supplies.
- Plight of children in street situations.
- Spread of COVID-19 during the Kanwar Yatra.
- Other issues (5):
- Contamination of rivers by sewage effluents.
- Vacancies and infrastructure issues in Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions.
- Delay in releasing individuals who had received bail.
- Impersonation of sureties.
- Death of an additional sessions judge in Dhanbad.
SUO MOTU CASES IN 2022
Total suo motu cases: 1
- Issue: Framing guidelines on mitigating circumstances to consider while imposing death sentences, referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
SUO MOTU CASES IN 2023
Total suo motu cases: 4
- Key cases:
- Stayed an Allahabad High Court order regarding a rape survivor’s kundali.
- Management of Sariska Tiger Reserve.
- Termination of six women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh.
- Regressive statements by the Calcutta High Court on consensual sexual relationship among adolescents.
- D.Y. Chandrachud’s comments on sexual violence against women in Manipur (widely reported but not officially recorded as suo motu by the Court).
THE YEAR 2024 AND SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE
In January, the Supreme Court took suo motu action in response to a dispute between Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and Justice Soumen Sen of the Calcutta High Court. The controversy began when Justice Sen’s bench stayed a CBI investigation that had been ordered by Justice Gangopadhyay in a case about fake Scheduled Tribe certificates used to secure medical college seats. Justice Gangopadhyay responded by issuing an order questioning Justice Sen’s jurisdiction and accusing him of political bias and “misconduct.” The Supreme Court intervened the next day, but during the hearings, it did not address the allegations against Justice Sen. Instead, it stayed the proceedings before the High Court and transferred the matter to itself.
In February, the Court intervened in a 2021 suo motu case, where it was monitoring the creation of a comprehensive bail policy to ensure the timely release of undertrial prisoners. The Court impleaded the state of Chhattisgarh to address this matter.
READ ORDER
Later in the year, the Supreme Court took suo motu action regarding the actions of High Court judges on two occasions. In August, the Court intervened after Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Supreme Court for staying a contempt petition before his bench. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court convened to address this issue and chose a “restrained” approach by expunging the remarks made by Justice Sehrawat. The bench emphasized that judges must “exercise great caution with their words, so as to not diminish the ‘majesty’ of the judiciary.”
READ ORDER
In September, the Court took suo motu cognizance of sexist and divisive comments made by Justice V. Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court accepted his apology but took this opportunity to clarify its views on judicial conduct.
In October, following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court ruled that caste-based segregation in prisons was unconstitutional. The Court decided to take suo motu action to monitor caste-, gender-, and disability-based discrimination in prisons across the country.
READ JUDGEMENT
The Court also took suo motu cognizance of judicial service examination rules in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, which had excluded visually impaired persons from appearing. It directed that the judicial examinations should be made more accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court issued guidelines to High Courts and Public Service Commissions to set separate qualifying marks for the preliminary exam and a separate cut-off for the main exam, among other directions.
In March, the Court responded to an incident at the District Court Complex in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, where two lawyers were assaulted during an advocate strike. The Supreme Court strongly condemned the strike, saying that the “most vital stakeholders” of the judicial system, the litigants, would suffer as a result of such actions.
READ ORDER
In April, the Supreme Court started looking into the issue of pensions for district judiciary and High Court judges. It examined how pensions are calculated to ensure that the time served by High Court judges in the district judiciary is taken into account when determining their pension.
READ JUDGEMENT
In May, the Court took up the deteriorating condition of the Bombay High Court’s annexe and Public Works Department buildings. It highlighted the urgent need for repairs and redevelopment, discussed relocating offices, explored temporary accommodation options, and asked for updates on planning a new High Court complex in the Bandra-Kurla Complex.
READ ORDER
In June, the Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue of unclaimed money in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and labor courts. Over Rs 2,000 crores of compensation money remained unclaimed, particularly in Gujarat.
One of the most prominent suo motu interventions of the year was in the case of the rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata, and the subsequent vandalism of the hospital. The Supreme Court criticized the West Bengal government for its failure to ensure the safety of medical professionals. It established a National Task Force to recommend measures to improve the safety and working conditions of doctors across the country.
READ JUDGEMENT
These interventions highlight the Supreme Court’s proactive approach in addressing critical legal and social issues, particularly concerning the actions of judges, the rights of marginalized communities, and the safety of professionals.
Compared to the years during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Supreme Court focused on representing underrepresented groups and addressing pressing societal issues, the Court’s suo motu interventions this year seemed to be more about judicial housekeeping. The Court, under the leadership of former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, appeared to be deeply concerned with maintaining the integrity, dignity, functionality, and public image of the judiciary.
Legal scholars Galanter and Ram have discussed how the Court can use its suo motu powers to portray itself as a protector of justice and the law.
“We might call this Cinderella law: the Court as good fairy appears, unbidden, to turn the tables on behalf of an obscure and resourceless victim,” they wrote, describing the Court’s role in these interventions.
This idea was reflected in the Court’s response to the tragic rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata. The Court, through its swift actions, signaled its support to the medical community. On the very first day of the hearing, the Court set up a National Task Force (NTF) to develop a national protocol for the safety of doctors. As we highlighted in one of our newsletters this year, this quick intervention helped build trust among the outraged medical community.
The Court’s suo motu jurisdiction, therefore, requires a closer examination. Although this year, the Court is often described as being proactive and engaged, a deeper analysis of the actual outcomes may tell a different story. While the Court’s interventions may seem to address burning issues and champion justice, the reality is that delays, slowing momentum, and measures that lose momentum over time might undermine the Court’s effectiveness.
This is not to diminish the value of the Court’s power to intervene. Its role in maintaining the public’s trust and addressing important matters cannot be overstated.
However, for this trust to become more than just a momentary feeling, the Court’s initiatives need to be sustained and lead to tangible results.