Discuss the scope and limits of the Supreme Court's suo motu jurisdiction in India. Should judicial discretion in accepting such petitions be subject to codified guidelines?

Q. Discuss the scope and limits of the Supreme Court's suo motu jurisdiction in India. Should judicial discretion in accepting such petitions be subject to codified guidelines? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Suo motu cognisance is the Court's power to initiate proceedings on its own motion, without a formal petitioner, drawing on its original jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 [1]. Its strength lies precisely in being discretionary — but that same discretion invites charges of selectivity.

Scope of the jurisdiction - Constitutional foundation: Article 32 empowers the Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights; Article 142 allows orders for "complete justice" [1]. - Relaxed locus standi: newspaper reports, letters, or oral mentioning can trigger cognisance — a PIL-era innovation extending access to the unrepresented. - Crisis governance: registered as Suo Motu Writ Petitions, as in In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic (2021), where the Court directed oxygen allocation and reviewed vaccine policy [2]. - Institutional oversight: used for contempt, custodial violence, and systemic administrative failures.

Limits - Purely discretionary: no litigant can compel its exercise. In July 2026, a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant declined to take cognisance of alleged police action against students marching to Parliament over NEET/NTA irregularities, indicating that proper recourse in law be followed [3]. - Separation of powers: policy and law-and-order operations belong to the executive and legislature — examination integrity, for instance, was addressed statutorily through the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 [4]. - Practical constraints: docket burden, absence of an appeal against suo motu orders, and reliance on the CJI's master-of-roster power.

Should discretion be codified? Codification would bring predictability and blunt perceptions of unequal attention; yet rigid triggers would defeat the power's emergency character, since grave violations are rarely foreseeable. The balanced course is structured, not fettered, discretion — indicative internal guidelines, a brief recorded reason when cognisance is taken or refused, and institutional rather than individual decision-making.

Suo motu power is best preserved as an exceptional constitutional safety valve for rights emergencies. Transparent, reason-based criteria — consistent with Article 14's guarantee against arbitrariness — would strengthen public confidence while leaving the Court's protective reach intact.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Jurisdiction — Supreme Court of India — Article 32 original writ jurisdiction and Article 142 power to do complete justice 2. In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021 — Supreme Court of India — registration and use of suo motu jurisdiction in a public-health crisis 3. The Hindu (23 July 2026) — CJI declines to take cognisance of alleged police violence against student protesters — discretionary refusal of suo motu cognisance in the "Chalo Sansad" NEET/NTA protest matter 4. PIB — Lok Sabha passes The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 — legislative, rather than judicial, route to examination-integrity reform