Model Answer

Suo motu cognisance refers to the power of constitutional courts to initiate proceedings on their own without a formal petition. Rooted in Articles 32 and 142, it evolved through the jurisprudence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to protect constitutional rights and address governance failures.

Significance of Suo Motu Cognisance Protects Fundamental Rights: Enables swift intervention in cases involving human rights violations and state inaction. Addresses Extraordinary Situations: Useful during disasters, pandemics, custodial violence, or incidents affecting public interest. Enhances Accountability: Acts as a constitutional check on executive and administrative lapses. Improves Access to Justice: Assists vulnerable groups who may lack the resources to approach courts. Concerns Regarding Frequent Use Judicial Overreach: Repeated intervention in matters already before competent courts may blur the separation of powers. Undermining Lower Judiciary: Frequent apex court monitoring may erode public confidence in trial courts and High Courts. Media-Driven Selectivity: High-profile cases receiving extensive media attention may attract intervention, while equally serious but less-publicized cases remain overlooked. Focus on Symptoms, Not Causes: Monitoring individual cases often fails to address structural issues such as judicial vacancies, poor infrastructure, and delays. Institutional Burden: Excessive use may divert the Supreme Court from its primary constitutional role. Way Forward Frame objective guidelines for invoking suo motu jurisdiction. Reserve its use for exceptional cases involving systemic failures. Strengthen subordinate courts through infrastructure, training, and timely appointments. Encourage High Courts to play a greater supervisory role under Article 235. Conclusion

Suo motu cognisance remains an essential constitutional safeguard for protecting rights and ensuring accountability. However, its legitimacy lies in judicial restraint, institutional balance, and simultaneous strengthening of the lower judiciary, ensuring that activism complements rather than substitutes systemic reform.