Suo Moto

What is Suo Moto?

"Suo moto" is a legal term originating from Latin, meaning "on its own motion." In the legal context, it refers to an action taken by a court, government agency, or any regulatory authority on its own initiative, without any external prompting or a formal complaint being filed. This concept is significant in the judicial system because it allows these bodies to act independently to uphold justice, enforce laws, or address matters of public interest without waiting for a case to be brought before them. In the context of judiciary, suo moto actions are often seen in cases where the courts take cognizance of a matter due to its significance, urgency, or impact on society. This could include situations involving human rights violations, environmental concerns, matters affecting the public at large, or any situation where the court believes immediate intervention is necessary to prevent injustice or harm. Suo moto powers enable courts to be proactive guardians of justice and the rule of law. However, the use of suo moto actions is also subject to scrutiny and debate, with concerns about judicial overreach and the balance of powers between different branches of government.

Legal Provisions related to Suo Moto cognizance

While Article 142 provides a constitutional basis, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) also confer suo moto powers on the judiciary. Under Section 159 of the CrPC, a magistrate may take cognizance of an offense based on information received or upon his own knowledge or suspicion. Similarly, Section 151 of the CPC empowers a civil court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.

Powers of Court in Suo Moto proceedings

The Supreme Court of India practices suo moto insight under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, while the High Courts practice this power under Article 226. With the assistance of this power, the courts can give mandates, requests, or writs to uphold major privileges in any event, when neither a proper appeal nor a public interest litigation (PIL) being recorded. Suo moto discernment is an intrinsic power of the courts to start judicial procedures without being appealed to by a bothered party. It gives the legal executive the position to engage in issues of public interest, guaranteeing that essential freedoms and law and order are maintained. The idea of suo moto discernment arose in the last part of the 1970s as a type of legal activism, pointed toward making the equity framework more open to underestimated segments of society.

1. Role of Judicial Activism: Judicial activism refers to the moment when the legal executive actively participates in interpreting and upholding the law to safeguard people's rights and interests. The Indian judicial system has employed suo moto insight as a potent tool to tackle social, economic, and political challenges. The judiciary in India has led the way in legal activism. The courts have often filled up regulatory gaps through suo moto actions and held the executive and administrative departments accountable.
2. Public Interest Litigation: A major factor in the expansion of judicial activism in India has been the role that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plays. PIL enables individuals or groups to record petitions for the benefit of the public, even if they are not directly affected by the main issue. Suo moto cognizance is closely related to PIL since it allows the courts to take up matters on their own when they see a threat to principle privileges or a violation of the public interest. Combining PIL with suo moto measures has proven crucial in addressing significant issues and ensuring equity for marginalised groups in society.
3. Contempt of Court: Contempt of court is a crucial area in which suo moto cognizance is applied. Acts that undermine the court's prestige or obstruct the transfer of equity are referred to as contempt of court. The court has the authority to initiate suo moto processes against anyone responsible for demeaning behaviour if it gets aware of any such activity.
4. Restarting Past Cases: The courts have the authority to reopen a closed case through suo moto cognizance in the event that new and substantial evidence becomes available. This makes it possible to reexamine the evidence and maybe right any wrongs in the legal system.
5. Placing an Order for New Case Probes: The court has the authority to take suo moto cognizance—that is, to order pertinent agencies or authorities to investigate and take appropriate action—when it learns of injustices committed against persons or groups within society. This guarantees the protection of the impacted parties' rights and the administration of justice.

Case Types of Suo Moto Writ Petitions

In India, both the High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to take up matters on their own motion, known as "Suo Motu" or "on its own motion." This power is derived from their respective constitutional provisions and legal statutes. Also they can exercise their suo motu powers based on information received from various sources, including media reports, letters, or complaints from individuals or organizations. The courts can then initiate proceedings, issue appropriate orders or directions, and monitor the implementation of their orders to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law. The types of Suo Motu Writ Petitions (Civil) and Suo Motu Writ Petitions (Criminal) initiated by the High Courts and the Supreme Court are as follows:-

Suo Motu Writ Petitions (Civil)

1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The courts can take cognizance of issues involving public interest, fundamental rights, or matters of significant public importance, even if no formal petition has been filed.
2. Violation of fundamental rights: The courts can take up cases involving the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to life, liberty, and equality.
3. Environmental issues: The courts can initiate proceedings to address environmental concerns, pollution, or issues related to the protection of the environment.
4. Governance and administrative matters: The courts can take up matters related to governance, administrative lapses, or issues concerning the functioning of government agencies or public bodies.

Suo Motu Writ Petitions (Criminal)

1. Custodial violence or torture: The courts can take suo motu cognizance of cases involving custodial violence, torture, or other human rights violations committed by law enforcement agencies or authorities.
2. Abuse of power by authorities: The courts can initiate proceedings if they become aware of instances of abuse of power or misuse of authority by law enforcement agencies or public officials.
3. Miscarriage of justice: The courts can take up cases where there is a reasonable apprehension of a miscarriage of justice or a failure of the justice delivery system.
4. Significant public interest or safety concerns: The courts can take suo motu cognizance of criminal matters that have a significant impact on public interest or public safety, such as riots, communal violence, or other serious law and order situations.

Research relating to Suo Moto powers

• More frequent use of Suo Motu Petitions? (SCO)This article looks into more frequent use of Suo Motu petitions and identified discrepancies between these ‘Case Status’ numbers and some of the data reported in the Supreme Court of India’s Annual Report, 2018-19.
• 2020 Saw a Historic High of Suo Moto Cases at the SC (SCO)The data presented in the article reveals a significant surge in the number of suo moto cases taken up by the Supreme Court of India during the COVID-19 pandemic years, particularly in 2020.

Criticism and Challenges

Suo moto cognizance has faced criticism and challenges even though it is generally seen of as a good development in the Indian legal system as a whole. Some claim that Suo moto cognizance's broad powers can lead to legal excess or interfere with the chief executive branch's and administrative branch's authority. Others express concern over the anticipated misuse of this authority and the lack of explicit guidelines governing its use. For the Indian legal administration, striking a balance between legal activity and the division of powers continues to be a challenge.