By Dilip Bobb
Two recent cases in the Supreme Court invoking suo motu judicial intervention shows that such actions are crucial in not just upholding the law or removing what it perceives to be a danger to society, but also where it sees victims not getting their just due. The two cases were to do with cadets injured or disabled during training in military institutes and discharged without adequate benefits and the other was the order on stray dogs in the National Capital Region. The latter issue may have triggered strongly opposing views in the public space, but the one to do with compensation for the cadets shows how such suo motu decisions are taken.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan took note of a story that had appeared in The Indian Express. While issuing the order to the Department of ex-servicemen’s Welfare, the Defence Ministry, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and heads of the three services, including the Chief of Defence Staff, Justice Nagarathna said: “We noted the report in The Indian Express, titled “Mounting Medical Bills, nowhere to go, Braveheart cadets disabled in training struggle in shadow” and a connected news item alongside. So, my learned brother and I discussed the matter. When I put it to him, he was gracious enough to concur that we should put this matter before the Chief Justice to consider it as a suo motu writ petition.”
The Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai agreed and placed the matter before the same bench that had brought it to his notice. The media investigation found that around 500 officer cadets had been medically discharged from noted training institutes for the armed forces, including the National Defence Academy, since 1985, due to varying degrees of disability incurred during training exercises. That meant they were not entitled to benefits for regular armed forces personnel, like free medical treatment, pensions, etc.
The stray dog case is discussed in greater detail in another article in this issue of the magazine, but the other recent suo motu cases that deserve mentioning are:
- RG Kar Rape: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata with the subsequent vandalism at the hospital. The Court criticized the state government’s handling of the situation and established a National Task Force to improve safety for doctors.
- Sariska Tiger Reserve: The Supreme Court addressed the management of the Sariska Tiger Reserve, specifically focusing on the issue of a temple within the reserve attracting large crowds. A committee was formed to find a solution balancing environmental protection and religious practices.
- Air Pollution in Delhi: The Delhi High Court took suo motu action regarding the worsening air quality in Delhi. The Court directed state governments to ensure companies and plants fulfil their corporate social responsibility by removing crop residue from farms.
- Murthal Rape: The Punjab and Haryana High Court initiated suo motu proceedings after reports of a mass molestation incident during the Jat reservation protests in 2016. The Court ordered the state government to provide phone records of senior police officials in the area.
Interestingly, some such cases also involved members of the judiciary. A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a Calcutta High Court judge’s order sentencing the chief justice of India and other Supreme Court judges to imprisonment. The judge was subsequently sentenced to six months of imprisonment for contempt of court. The Supreme Court also invoked a suo motu case involving remarks made by a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge that were deemed disrespectful to the apex court. The Court expunged the remarks.
Some cases filed as suo motu petitions remain open to review, most notably the case dealing with air pollution in Delhi which has been kept pending for a continuing mandamus (a court order directing a public official or body to perform a specific legal duty that they are obligated to perform, but have failed to do) even after orders were issued on prevention of stubble burning. Notably, a majority of these cases were taken up on the basis of media reports, the latest being the problems faced by disabled cadets. Other such cases include children falling into borewells (2014) and children taking part in the Shaheen Bagh protests and for expeditious trials in cheque dishonour cases (2020).
The real trigger for the filing of suo motu petitions was the Emergency in 1975. Once the Emergency was lifted, the Supreme Court took up several issues that involved government and institutional neglect that denied individuals or groups their fundamental rights. That, in turn, led to the concept of Public Interest Litigation, or PIL.
The principal of suo motu exercise of jurisdiction emanates from the Constitution of India. Article 32 of the Constitution grants power to the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The High Courts also enjoy similar powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rise of judicial activism has also contributed to the courts having to issue suo motu petitions.
Such actions by the courts have also led to criticism, the main one being that the judiciary often invokes such actions that are in the domain of the government, relevant ministries or institutions. The critics contend that in a democracy, institutions cannot mature if they are constantly undermined by the judicial organs of the state. Whatever the criticism, suo motu petitions are, in most cases, on the right side of judicial history.
As one cadet, Shubnam Gupta, who suffered a spinal cord injury at the National Defence Academy that left him paralysed from the waist downward, told the newspaper that brought his story to the notice of the Supreme Court bench: “When we were injured during rigorous training we were not seen as servicemen, but as liabilities. The Supreme Court action feels like a ray of light after a decade of darkness.”
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine