Suo motu interventions by the Supreme Court have become a key instrument of accountability, but also invite charges of judicial overreach. Critically examine with recent examples.

Suo motu jurisdiction lets the Supreme Court act without a formal petition. It draws on Article 32 (writ jurisdiction) and Article 142 ("complete justice"). It grew out of the PIL era and now works as a quick check when the executive fails to act. But because the Court alone decides when to use it, it is open to the charge of overreach.

Suo motu as an instrument of accountability

• Humanitarian relief: During the 2020 lockdown, the Court took up the "problems and miseries" of stranded migrant labourers. It ordered free food, shelter and transport for them [3].
• Systemic reform: After the RG Kar rape-murder (2024), a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud set up a National Task Force on the safety of doctors [4].
• Protecting knowledge heritage: The Court has taken up the case of the 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library, which holds over 8.5 lakh books. It was given 13 days to vacate, and the Central Vista plan has no space for it [1]. The Court can insist on a relocation plan without stopping the project.
• Speed: If victims cannot reach the Court, or deadlines are very short, waiting for a petition may mean relief comes too late.

Charges of judicial overreach

• Policy-making from the bench: In the 2025 stray dogs case, a two-judge Bench ordered all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR moved to shelters within eight weeks [5]. Within days, a larger Bench changed the order and allowed dogs to be released after vaccination and deworming [6]. This suggests the first order was hasty and made without enough expert input.
• Selectivity: It is not clear why the Court acts on some media reports and not others. This invites the charge of "headline-driven" justice.
• Separation of powers: Allocating buildings or office space is the executive's job. The Court had already upheld Central Vista 2:1 in Rajeev Suri v. DDA (2021) [2]. Further intervention risks reopening a settled question.
• Institutional burden: Cases the Court starts itself add to its already heavy pendency.

Calibrated middle path

• Enforce process, not outcomes. For example, Justice Khanna's dissent stressed prior Heritage Conservation Committee approval [2]. The choice of means should be left to the executive.

Suo motu power works best when it fills a gap in accountability, and worst when judges' views replace executive judgment. Clear criteria for taking up cases, reliance on expert bodies like the Task Force, and orders on procedure rather than detailed directions would protect rights under Article 21. They would also respect the separation of powers, which is part of the Constitution's basic structure.