Supreme Court Review 2024: Suo moto cases at an all-time high

In 2024, the Supreme Court exercised its suo moto jurisdiction in 12 cases, the highest ever since its establishment. Suo moto cases are taken up by the Court on its volition. Issues may be brought to the Court’s attention by news reports, academic studies or letters that concerned citizens may write to it. Typically, the Court exercises its suo moto jurisdiction sparingly. 

Suo moto powers are exercised in three main ways. First, the Court may take action against a person who disobeys or shows ‘contempt’ towards it. We have not included this kind of suo moto action in this piece, to focus on cases where the Court has used its powers to address what it considers as matters of grave importance. Second the Court may, by its own will, transfer a case to itself or to the lower courts. Finally, it may take cognisance of pressing issues affecting society.

In their chapter in A Qualified Hope (2019), a collection of essays on the Supreme Court’s track record on progressive social change, Marc Galanter and Vasujith Ram describe the exercise of suo moto jurisdiction as the Court’s eagerness “to project itself into the moment of action, to act at the coal face, where the rubber meets the road, liberated from the stylized intermediation of registry, clerks and lawyers, pleadings, motions and appeals, that present matters to the Court in standardized digestible packages.” 

This year, the Court appears to have been more eager than usual to “project itself” as an institution ready to answer the burning questions of the day and fulfill its duty as a guardian of judicial integrity. In the first part of this year-end review, we’ll look at the rising instances of suo moto cases. In the second part, we’ll examine the cases the Court considered this year and what they tell us about the Court’s concerns. 

Rising instances of suo moto cases from 2020-2024

As indicated by the graph below, the Supreme Court has exercised its suo moto jurisdiction 66 times in the last 20 years. Out of these, over 50 percent (35) cases were filed in the last five years.

In 2020, the Court took up 10 cases suo moto. Two of them were criminal matters—the involvement of children in the Shaheen Bagh protests in 2020 and the expeditious trial of cheque bounce cases. The eight civil suo moto cases all dealt with COVID-19 related crises—access to justice, Court functioning during the pandemic, financial aid for members of the Bar, closure of the Mid Day Meal Schemes, safety of migrant labourers, prisoners, children in protection homes, dignified handling of patients and bodies.

The pandemic-related interventions continued into 2021. Of the eight suo moto cases that year, three were pandemic related—access to essential supplies, plight of the children in street situations, and the spread COVID-19 during the Kanwar Yatra. The Court also looked at the contamination of rivers by sewage effluents, vacancies and infrastructure issues in Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions across the country, delay in release of persons who had received bail, the issue of impersonation of sureties and of the death of an additional sessions judge in Dhanbad.

The Court exercised its suo moto jurisdiction only once in 2022. It took cognisance of the need for framing guidelines on the potential mitigating circumstances that Courts must consider while imposing death sentences. A three-judge bench referred the case to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

In 2023, the Court exercised its suo moto powers four times. It stayed an Order of the Allahabad High Court which had sought a report on a rape survivor’s kundali to see if she was a “manglik” or unlucky. It also looked into the management of Sariska Tiger Reserve and the termination of six women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh. The Court also took note of a Calcutta High Court order which had made regressive statements on consensual sex among adolescents. In July 2023, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud’s comments on the horrific instances of sexual assault and violence on women in Manipur were widely reported as the Court taking suo moto cognisance. Notably, this has not been officially recorded by the Court as a case taken up suo moto. 

Suo moto cases in 2024 

The first suo moto action of the year was in January, when the Court was responding to the dispute between Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and Justice Soumen Sen of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Sen’s bench had stayed a CBI probe ordered by Justice Gangopadhyay in a case relating to fake Scheduled Tribe certificates being given out to secure seats in medical colleges. In response, Justice Gangopadhyay issued an order questioning Justice Sen’s jurisdiction over the case, and accused him of political bias and “misconduct.” The Supreme Court intervened the next day. During the hearings, however, it was silent on the allegations levied against Justice Sen. It stayed the hearings of the case before the High Court and transferred the matter to itself. 

This year, the Court intervened to address the actions of High Court judges two more times. In August, the Court took note of an Order where Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sharply criticised the top court for staying a contempt petition that was before his bench. Five judges assembled to hear this suo moto case and chose to take a “restrained” approach—they simply expunged the remarks. They remarked that judges must exercise great caution with their words, so as to not diminish the “majesty” of the judiciary. In September, the Court took note of the sexist and divisive comments made by Justice V. Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court. The Bench accepted Justice Srishananda’s apology, but took the opportunity to put on record their views on judicial conduct. 

In February, the Court impleaded the state of Chhattisgarh in a 2021 suo moto case, where it is monitoring the creation of a comprehensive bail policy for the timely release of undertrial prisoners. In October, following a PIL in which it held caste-based segregation in prisons to be unconstitutional, the Court decided suo moto that it will be monitoring caste-, gender- and disability-based discrimination in prisons. 

The Court also took suo moto cognisance of judicial services examination rules in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan which excluded visually impaired persons from appearing. The Court took suo moto action to make judicial examinations more accessible for persons with disabilities. The Court issued guidelines to High Courts and Public Service Commissions and directed them to set separate qualifying marks for the preliminary exam as well as a separate cut-off mark to qualify for the main exam, among other directions.

In March, the Court took cognisance of an incident in the District Court Complex in Gautam Budh Nagar in Uttar Pradesh. Two lawyers had been manhandled and assaulted during an advocates strike. The Court strongly condemned the strike, stating that the “most vital stakeholders” of the judicial system, the litigants, would bear its brunt. 

In April, the Court began to look into the fixing of pensions in the district judiciary and in High Courts. The Court is looking at how pensions are calculated, to ensure that the time served by High Court judges in the district judiciary is accounted for in the calculation of their pension. 

In May, the Court addressed the deteriorating state of the Bombay High Court's annexe and Public Works Department buildings, emphasising the need for urgent repairs and redevelopment. It looked into relocating offices, explored options for temporary accommodation, and asked for updates about the planning of a new High Court complex in Bandra-Kurla Complex. 

In June, the Court took suo moto cognisance of the issue of unclaimed money piling up in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and labour courts. Reportedly, over Rs 2000 crores of compensation money has remained unclaimed in Gujarat alone. 

In arguably the most prominent suo moto intervention of the year, the Supreme Court addressed the rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata and the subsequent vandalism of the hospital. It pulled up the West Bengal government for the systemic failure to ensure the safety of medical professionals. The bench established a National Task Force to recommend measures for improved safety and working conditions of doctors. 

Paternal, protective or pretentious?

Compared to the COVID-19 years, where the Court was taking on the role of representing underrepresented groups and issues, the Court’s suo moto interventions this year seemed to be about judicial housekeeping. The Court (through the former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud) appeared deeply concerned about the integrity, dignity, functionality and popularity of the judiciary. 

Galanter and Ram have written about how the Court’s suo moto powers can be used by the institution and its people to portray itself as a champion of justice and a protector of 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. 

We saw this to some extent, when the Court emphatically said “We’re here” to the medical community as they mourned one of their own. On the very first day of the hearing, the Court set up a National Task Force (NTF) to create a national protocol for the safety of doctors. In one of our newsletters this year (subscribe here) we had written about how the Court’s swift intervention created a semblance of trust in the outraged medical community. 

Yet, after eight days of hearings over four months, the actual matter of the rape and murder remains remains pending in trial courts and the NTF has not yet submitted a final report on measures to improve doctor safety. On 10 December, the Court set its next hearing date for 17 March 2025—more than three months later.

The Court’s suo moto jurisdiction, therefore, requires a closer and more critical look. In a year such as this, where the top court is described as proactive and busy, a deep dive on the actual impact of the Court’s could tell a different story. While it may portray a Court that jumps in burning issues to champion rights and justice, a look at the end result may indicate inordinate delays, slowing momentum and placatory measures that often run out of steam. This is not to take away from the value of a power like this, in both law and for the public’s trust in the institution. For this trust to take root, however, the Court’s initiatives must sustain and bear fruit. 

A note on data collection: Although the Court has been taking up certain issues on its own volition since 1979, the Supreme Court had not begun to separately record the data for suo moto cases until 2018. The data from 1994 to 2018 is taken from Galanter and Ram’s chapter in Qualified Hope. 

For the years 2018 to 2024, the author’s first port of call was the Supreme Court’s Annual Report. She crosschecked the numbers there by tallying the individual cases showing up on the “Case Status” function on the Supreme Court’s website. The numbers did not match for three years: 2021, 2023 and 2024. The author’s searches indicate that that website data is more reliable, so she has gone with those numbers for those years. For instance, the annual report shows four cases registered between January and August 2024. But the count of individual cases through the “Case Status” functions shows that eight cases had already been registered in this period.