Tag:

Suo Moto

SUO MOTO
ScholarlyTop 10TrendingWriting

Forty-Six Suo Moto Cases in Supreme Court from 1990 to 2021

by Shamsul

Forty-Six Suo Moto Cases in Supreme Court from 1990 to 2021

 
Indian Supreme Court has sometimes taken up ‘suo moto’ cases without any interest or filed a petition.
 
Indian Supreme Court takes ‘suo moto’ cases sometimes. It means they take up these cases without any of their interest or filing a petition.
 
While this type of power is given by the s. 23 of Contempt of Courts Acts, 1971 For the court’s contempt, usage of a process in judicial review authority or writ has been new. It came into existence by relaxation of the procedure while considering PILS. The first example is considered in the case of Sunil Batra. Process for suo moto petition was made formal in 2014 by the adoption of Order 38, Rule 12(1)(a) in Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
   
 
Vasujith Ram and Marc Galanter take data from the time duration of 1990 to 2018, ‘Suo Moto Intervention and the Indian Judiciary,’ Chapter 4 in Rosenberg et al. (eds), A Qualified Hope (CUP 2019). This data is collected from many reports and there is suspicion of human errors in it. Mainly because until the 2010s, courts were not counting suo moto petitions separately. Data from May 2018 is taken from the website of the Indian Supreme Court. Here, we see the ‘suo moto’ awareness only in Court’s Review authority or writ. We look at the frequency & no. of cases from 1990-2021. Also, look at the nature of cases instituted from 1990 through 2021.
 
 
Total 46 Suo Moto
 
Court has started a total of 46 cases in this duration of time. These numbers are rising with the passage of time or over the years. One of the earliest cases was looked up in 1994, which addressed pollution in the Yamuna river, but it is still pending. It is interesting to know that one of the most recent cases of 2021 is about looking at the river’s pollution in more detail. The highest number of suo moto cases was in the year 2020, and the number was 10. It was mainly because of the Covid pandemic at that time. Within the first three months, there are already 3 new cases in 2021.
 
In the past 27 years, almost fifty percent of cases were taken-up only in the last three years. The steepest increase was seen in 2014 (4x from 2013) and 2019 (2.33x from 2018).
 
Almost 18 cases out of them are still pending, and it makes up forty percent of all cases. Some of them issue orders at ‘continuing mandamus’, which means these cases will endure open for reviewing situations & issue fresh orders instead of instituting the new case. The case of air pollution in Delhi is an example of it.
   
 
 
 
A shift is seen over time in the matters dealt with by the court in the suo moto cases.
 
Some cases deal with a ‘particular issue.’ It means issues that are basically found in nature, but their scope is limited only to one place. E.g., pollution in Delhi. Covid cases are also included in it, as 9 cases deal with the fallout of Covid.
 
‘Particular incident’ means an issue taken up by reference to an incident that involves a specific number of people. E.g., a case in which there was a fire in Tamil Nadu which killed twenty-five asylum inmates. From 1994-2014, sixty-one percent (11 out of 18) of total suo moto cases dealt with a particular incident. From 2015-2021, fourteen percent (4 out of 28) cases dealt with a particular incident.
   
 
‘Systemic Issues’ mean broader matters like the approach of criminal justice structure to cases of sexual violence. Sixty-nine (69) percent (9 out of 13) cases are dealing with these issues, which were initiated in 2015.
 
 
 
 
Need Help In Content Writing?
 
Do you want more advice? Do you have good practices to share? Express yourself in the comments.
 
Moreover, if you want any help in writing content to drive more traffic and boost conversions, get in touch through Contact our team.
   
 
Do you want any help writing quality content, driving more traffic to your website, and boosting conversions? You can contact me through my Freelancer.com profile also. I always prefer to work through Freelancer.com for smooth functioning. Here you pay safely and securely.
 
 
Read More:
 
SUO MOTO POWERS IN THE WRIT JURISDICTION | SOUTH ASIAN REVOLUTION?
 
SUO MOTU | JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR JUDICIAL ADVENTURISM? 
 
 
 
 
 
  0 comment 
 
 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail 
 
 
 
 
 
  Suo Motu Powers  
 
 
ManagementTrendingWriting
 
Suo Moto Powers in the Writ Jurisdiction | South Asian Revolution?
 
 by Shamsul   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Suo Moto Powers in the Writ Jurisdiction | South Asian Revolution?
 
 
Indian courts have introduced the use of suo moto powers, and it seems like some other courts in South Asia, like Bangladesh and Pakistan, are getting inspiration from it.
 
Since January 2020, the court has been involved in thirteen cases ‘suo moto’. It means that the court takes cases without any interest or filed petitions. A notice of their own starts these cases. Some of these cases are very important and have been taken up in pandemic situations, e.g., dealing with migrant workers, vaccine policy, prisoners, and vulnerable children.
 
This type of suo moto power is given by the S. 23 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with respect to contempt of the court. Many other fundamental law authorities give this power to courts. However, the use of the procedure in judicial review authority or writ has been new to India, and here it is being used for testing or scanning executive (in) action.
 
Vasujith Ram and Marc Galanter say that it was created from a relaxation of the procedure while considering the public interest litigation. The court justifies this power under Articles 32 and 226 of the constitution of India, 1950.
   
 
 
Gujrat High Court Suo Moto
 
The earliest of this procedure was seen in a case by Gujrat High Court, and the judge was MP Thakkar (Special Civil Application 2785/79) in the year of 1979. In this case, court took into consideration a case where PPF did not pay the wife the pension after the husband’s death, and the court came to know about this case from a news article. Court gave orders to the state for granting the pension to her.
 
 
Supreme Court – India
 
In Sunil Batra case in 1980, a letter was accepted as a petition at Supreme Court. Academics have named this type of practice in which informal letters are considered petitions as the court’s ‘epistolary jurisdiction. Some suo moto cases are taken up as a result of some initiatives by the judge(s). In 2014, the process for suo moto petitions at Supreme Court became formal by the adoption of the Order38, Rule 12(1)(a) in Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
 
 
European Courts – Suo Moto
 
Other countries’ authorities like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have not adopted these powers. Constitutional and Administrative law cases in these authorities remain in traditional adversarial process, where it is necessary to file a petition for consideration of the claim. In Carlisle v. the United States, the Supreme Court of United States said that the court could not use ‘suo moto’ to grant an acquittal.
   
 
 
South Asian Courts – Suo Moto
 
It seems like Indian Courts have introduced this different and good use of the suo moto powers. It is like inspiration for many other South Asian Courts, which started taking up the cases like suo moto. A very common use is seen in another country, Pakistan. Court has depended on Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to give a justification of their powers of suo moto. This article basically gives a permit to correct the violations of fundamental rights. It was commonly used in the 1980s when martial law was raised.
 
This process is used more commonly nowadays. Under the CJP Nisar (2016-2019), the Supreme Court of Pakistan started almost seven suo moto cases. It became more prominent in pandemic duration.
 
For the first time in 1992, Bangladeshi Court used this procedure to quash the sentence of a prisoner jailed for twelve years since he was 9 years old. Since then, courts have used the ‘Suo Moto Rule’ for different reasons. Except for these sentences or cases, they are used for other cases like child rape that can cause fatwas.
   
 
Supreme Court of Maldives had given an order against Human Rights Commission od Maldives in Suo moto case in 2015. The power of commission and the ability to interact with foreign bodies were restricted by doing so. When they faced criticism, then parliament passed a law to restrict power accurately.
 
 
Nigerian Courts 
 
Beyond South Asia, Nigerian Courts also experienced suo moto powers differently. It is done by adopting a case that is already decided in the lower court before filing an appeal.
 
 
 
Need Help or Advice in Content Management:
 
Do you want more advice? Do you have good practices to share? Express yourself in the comments.
 
Moreover, if you want any help to write content to drive more traffic and boost conversions, get in touch through Contact our team?
   
 
Do you want any help writing quality content, driving more traffic to your website, and boosting conversions? You can contact me through my Freelancer.com profile also. I always prefer to work through Freelancer.com for smooth functioning. Here you pay safely and securely.
 
 
Read More:
 
Suo Motu | Judicial Activism or Judicial Adventurism? 
 
Academic Writing for Graduate Students | Types and Tips
 
Is It Safe to Get Essay Help?
 
 
 
 
  6 comments 
 
 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail 
 
 
 
 
 
  Suo Moto  
 
 
Better TipsManagementTrendingWriting
 
Suo Motu | Judicial Activism or Judicial Adventurism? 
 
 by Shamsul   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Suo Motu | Judicial Activism or Judicial Adventurism? 
 
 
‘Suo Moto’ or ‘Suo Motu’ refers to being in full control of any matter. Its legal meaning is “its own motion”. It is basically a Latin term and resembles with ‘Sua Sponte’ by the meaning, as ‘Sua Sponte’ says, “of his, her, it’s or their own accord”. Suo Moto is used for any legal action taken by a legal party (authority) irrespective of the other party’s demand. In the 17th century, “Epistolary Jurisdiction” took place due to the awareness regarding easy access to law and justice for the poor and needy. In usual cases, any party brings the case to the court to demand justice of a ruling on a certain matter. Still, the law is also allowed to take steps regarding any matter of public development like gross law violation, issue, or disturbance in law order maintenance etc. In general cases of ‘Suo Motu’, a vast community or a large number of public development or justice is the primary concern. In usual cases, the information about such unjust comes from a third source, and the judiciary takes action on it to ensure that no violation is done or will be done. These actions aim to widen the scale of justice to the public having some reasons not to stand up for themselves.
 
 
 
Indian Judiciary and Suo Motu
 
Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution are the basis behind the Suo Motu. These articles are a bridge between the judiciary and the public. Public Interest Litigation (PIL), along with these articles, allows the bench to take the public appropriate actions on their own. Even the court can bring any issue on its own without the need of any 3rd party and work on the fast decisions. In India, the judiciary has taken Suo Motu as the critical step to investigate the actions taken by exclusives. In India, the executive, legislature, and judiciary are considered independent in their decisions, but this independence is no longer prominent due to judicial advancement. Even some courts and law authorities like Humble Apex Court have also taken steps based on news, media reports and public protests. Court Contempt Cases and cases where any person, community, or a specific part of society has faced brutal unjust, Suo Motu becomes the base to provide a just solution. Any act of India does not set the scope, limitations, and extent of Suo Motu, so it is applied when and where needed. 
 
The world, along with India, is going through a severe pandemic. Any PIL in these times is an addition to the suffering of humans. 
 
 
 
Filed Cases in India
 
In India, the number of filed cases is increasing, and courts are now making more use of Suo Motu than before to deal with the issue. 
 
 
  • A Member of Parliament, Smt. Mahua Moitra filed a case for Migrant workers enduring COVID-19, and the basis of this case was Suo Motu. [1].
  • Another Suo Motu based case was taken in Hon’ble Apex Court for the children protection homes. [2]
  • A case in Apex Court is dealing with prison overcrowding by taking Suo Motu as its basis. [3]
  • Another Suo Motu-based case in Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned about the children’s mid-day meal availability. All the appointed commissioners are informed to ensure that pandemic is not supposed to lead to another disaster. Sanjay R. Hegde is a well-known senior advocate of the Amicus Currie of this case. [iv]
  • Different lawyers and law supporters face trouble while filing a Suo Motu case, so to deal with this issue, Hon’ble Apex Court has increased the appeal filing time period for any such case, no matter if under special or general law. [v]
  • Other than this, various courts are now taking such cases for a larger number of public interests across the country. Based on a new paper report, The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad took action on a Suo Motu case and referred to the case as very disturbing. The division bench also gave its statement claiming the issue is important and offers no resistance to daily proceedings. [vi]
  • High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered the case of Vizag gas leak on the basis of Suo motu. [vii]
  • National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi and National Green Tribunal, New Delhi are also saddened by the incident and took a Suo Motu-based notice.
 
 
 
SUO MOTU | JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR JUDICIAL ADVENTURISM
 
Judicial adventurism and judicial activism are often considered as one term. Judicial activism refers to the right doings after executives’ failed attempts to provide the public a just decision or society without interfering enough to take the democracy into their own hands and be above the law. There have been some cases of fiscal policy etc. where the judiciary had to interfere with making sure the executives are not using the law to benefit from it personally. Different courts, including the Hon’ble Apex Court, are being praised for their Suo Motu bases approaches. Even in all these cases, the judiciary is bound to follow the law as it is the wise and needed step. 
   
 
J S Verma, former Chief Justice of India Justice, stated that the judiciary should be responsible for its own duties, and overstepping is only appreciated if the authority has failed in its doings. It is proved in judicial review properly. It was added that judicial activism should not be a hidden agenda for judicial ad hoc or dictatorship.
 
In Delhi, many judicial adventurism-based cases were ceased. [viii] 
 
While the supreme court gave its judgment that the judiciary can review any state assembly, and if there is no issue found in the proceedings of the assembly, then it is free to restore its proceedings as before. [ix]
 
TMA Pai Foundation case[x] and the Islamic Academy case [xi] are clear examples of governmental interference. Also, in 2016, Union of India vs. Shyam Narayan Chouksey, the government made it compulsory that all cinemas are bound to play the national anthem and other necessary information before starting any movie. [xii]
 
In the recent Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi case, the Hon’ble Apex Court took action on Suo Motu and bound all media handles to not question or debate on this topic. [xiii]
 
The retired judges were also part of the crowd questioning this case.
 
In another recent event, the government made it necessary for all private labs to conduct COVID tests without any fee and this might be a suitable example of judicial overreach. [xiv]
 
Although government reserves the right to set any charge fee for private labs and under the Essential Commodities Act, it can make any propositions.
   
 
 
 
Suo Motu | Conclusion
 
One should clearly understand the limitations and dissimilarity between “judicial adventurism” and “judicial activism”. Suo Motu is the utmost need of society and the state. It states the supremacy of law and the benefit of the public above all. Judicial interference should not create a hindrance to public betterment and justice. It should not be applicable on executives and legislatures. Courts and executives should have a clear boundary, and there should be clear rules and regulations to deal with any situation in which judicial overreach seems like a solution. Judiciary is a much needed and praised part of our system, but this vital part has also overused its powers at times, which keeps it under question from time to time. If governments want to earn the trust of the public, then they should keep a clear eye on the doings of the judiciary. A balance between the judicial acts and the demands of the public will lead to a better society based on faith and regulations.
 
 
 
 
 
Need Help or Advice in Content Management:
 
Do you want more advice? Do you have good practices to share? Express yourself in the comments
 
Moreover, if you want any help to write content to drive more traffic and boost conversions, get in touch through Contact our team?
 
Do you want any help writing quality content, driving more traffic to your website, and boosting conversions? You can contact me through my Freelancer.com profile also. I always prefer to work through Freelancer.com for smooth functioning. Here you pay safely and securely.
 
 
Read More:
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES
 
[1] Mahua Moitra Versus Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No.470 of 2020]
 
[2] IN   RE   CONTAGION   OF   COVID   19   VIRUS   IN   CHILDREN PROTECTION HOMES [Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.4 of 2020]
 
[3] IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS [Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.1 of 2020]
 
[4] IN RE: REGARDING CLOSURE OF MID-DAY MEAL SCHEME [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2020]
 
[5] IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020]
 
[6] Writ Petition (PIL) No.42 of 2020 [Suo Moto Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.]
   
 
[7] IN RE. POISONOUS GAS LEAKAGE IN VISAKHAPATNAM [Suo Motu WP (PIL) No.112 of 2020]
 
[8] M.C. Mehta versus Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677 of 1985]
 
[9]  Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.257 of 2005]
 
[10] T.M.A. Pai Foundation Versus State of Karnataka [Writ Petition (Civil) No.317 of 1993]
 
[11]  Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Versus State of Karnataka [Writ Petition (Civil) No.350 of 1993]
 
[12]  Shyam Narayan Chouksey Versus Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) 855 of 2016]
 
[13]  IN RE: MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE TOUCHING UPON THE INDEPENDANCE OF JUDICIARY- MENTIONED BY SHRI TUSHAR MEHTA, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.1 of 2019]
 
[14] Shashank Deo Sudhi versus Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No.10816 of 2020]
 
 
 
 
  0 comment 
 
 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail