"Suo motu interventions by the Supreme Court act as a check on executive excess but risk judicial overreach." Discuss, with reference to recent cases on public institutions.

When the Supreme Court acts suo motu, it starts a case on its own, without waiting for a petitioner. It draws on its writ and plenary powers (Articles 32 and 142). In October 2026, it took suo motu note of the order asking Delhi's 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library to move out to make way for Central Vista [1]. The case shows that such action can make the government accountable, but it can also stretch the court's role too far.

Suo motu action as a check on executive excess

• Holding the government to account: The library, which holds over 8.5 lakh books, was told on 17 September to vacate by 30 September. The Bench asked the Union government to file an affidavit within three weeks setting out the space allotted to the library and its layout plans [1].
• Gentle tools: The court did not stay the project. It only asked the government to put its claim on record [1].
• Filling a governance gap: After the RG Kar hospital case, the court acted suo motu. It set up a National Task Force to draft national protocols on the safety of medical professionals [2].
• Coordination failures: The Central Vista project, run by MoHUA, plans to move 51 ministries into the new Common Central Secretariat buildings [3]. A project this large can sideline smaller institutions in its path.

Risk of judicial overreach

• Separation of powers: In Rajeev Suri v. DDA (2021), the Court upheld Central Vista and treated policy and planning as matters for the executive [4]. Checking a library's floor plans may intrude on that space.
• Acting on news reports: Cases started on media reports can go ahead without full facts or hearing every affected party [1].
• Lack of expertise: Courts are not experts in architecture, conservation or managing hospitals. The RG Kar case needed a task force of medical experts [2].
• Creep beyond the issue: If courts keep supervising a matter for a long time, they risk running it themselves instead of only reviewing it.

Suo motu → Affidavit/disclosure → Executive decides  (check)
          ↘ Court redesigns/approves layouts        (overreach)

Flowchart: where the line falls

Overall, suo motu action works best when it compels disclosure and due process and leaves the actual decisions to the government. The way forward is restraint: issue time-bound directions, rely on expert bodies, and withdraw once the government complies. Used this way, suo motu powers support constitutional accountability without breaching the separation of powers.