Supreme Court's suo motu cognisance raises questions on judicial overreach and efficacy
The article critiques the Supreme Court's increasing reliance on suo motu cognisance in individual criminal cases, likening it to a bureaucracy ringing its own chain. It argues that such interventions, often triggered by media reports, are "heroic" but fail to promote institutional shake-up in lower judiciary. The author points out that while the apex court takes cognisance, the actual work of conviction or investigation is done by trial courts. The trend of rising suo motu cases since 2020, contrasted with earlier periods, suggests a shift from a "rare" to a "recurring" instrument, raising questions about the effective use of scarce judicial attention, especially when dowry deaths and other serious crimes have low conviction rates.
मुख्य बिंदु
- The Supreme Court's frequent use of suo motu cognisance in individual criminal cases is criticized as a form of judicial overreach.
- Such interventions, often media-driven, are seen as superficial rather than leading to systemic reforms in the lower judiciary.
- The article highlights that despite apex court cognisance, the investigative and conviction work primarily rests with trial courts.
- There has been a significant increase in suo motu matters since 2020, shifting from a rare to a recurring practice.
- The author questions the effective allocation of scarce judicial attention, contrasting it with low conviction rates in other serious crimes like dowry deaths.
परीक्षा तथ्य
- Case examples: Twisha Sharma's death, R.G. Kar matter, Hathras case, Lakhimpur Kheri.
- Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI (2012) - five-judge Constitution Bench authority on media trial.
- National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) recorded 6,450 dowry deaths in 2022.
- Article 235 of the Constitution (control over subordinate courts).
पढ़ें। याद रखें। याद करें।
स्पेस्ड-रिपीटिशन फ्लैशकार्ड, दैनिक क्विज़ और ऑफ़लाइन एक्सेस पाएं — एंड्रॉइड पर मुफ़्त।