'Not A Mute Spectator' : Suo Motu Cases Taken By Supreme Court In 2021

'Suo motu' is a Latin term which means 'on its own motion'. When the Court takes suo moto cognisance of an issue, it institutes a case on its own accord by taking cognisance of a  public issue. At times, the Court's suo motu actions will be based on letter petition, media reports etc.

When the COVID-19 pandemic and plight of those in distress had evoked a feeling of helplessness and indignation amongst most people in the country, the Supreme Court of India intervened to monitor the availability of vaccines, medicines, oxygen etc. The Court also took pro-active actions for the benefit of several sections including the migrant workers, orphaned children etc.

"At a time of national crisis, the Supreme Court cannot be a mute spectator" the Supreme had said in its suo motu case taken on COVID issues.

The following are the suo moto cases that were taken up by the Supreme Court in 2021:

In Re Remediation of Polluted Rivers

The Supreme Court on 13th January 2021 took suo moto cognisance on the issue of "remediation of polluted rivers". The Court decided to address the pollution of water resources and the deterioration in the quality of freshwater. A bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed that one of the major causes of water pollution was the discharge of non-treated/ partially treated municipal waste and effluents of various States and cities

The Bench issued directions to CPCB to submit a report identifying municipalities along the river Yamuna, which have not installed total treatment plants for sewage, highlight any other source of prominent contamination within the limits of Municipalities and also submit priority-wise list of Municipalities, river stretches adjacent to which have been found to be most polluted.

Observing that pollution-free water is a fundamental right that a welfare state is bound to ensure, the Supreme Court had also called for a response from the Ministry of Jal Shakti.

Later, a Bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao appointed a committee to conduct a local inspection with regard to the quality and quantity of water released by the state of Haryana at Balla (upstream of the Yamuna river in Delhi), the level of the Wazirabad bank and whether the Delhi government is diverting the water to the Water Treatment Plants at Wazirabad, Chandrawal and Okhla before the water reaches the Wazirabad bank.

Case Title: In Re: Remediation of Polluted Rivers, SMW (C) 1/2021

Appointments to Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission :

The Supreme Court on 22nd February 2021 registered suo moto proceedings with regards to the "inaction of the governments in appointing the President, Members and respective staff of various District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions across India."

A division bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta had issued certain directions to ensure that the vacancies are filled in of the Chairman/members of the Consumer Forums. The Supreme Court had also clarified that the process of filing up vacancies in the State Consumer Commissions as per directions issued by it must not be impeded by the judgement passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 14/09.2021 quashing certain Consumer Protection Rules.

The Court sought response of the Union of India and State Governments on the aspect of providing information as of 1st March 2021 regarding vacancy positions and had granted two weeks time to all the States for sending such information to National Commission. Later, the Court had warned that costs in the range of Rupees 1 to 2 lakhs will be imposed on States which fail to submit status reports within a week regarding the vacancies in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, and the costs will be recovered from the concerned officials.

On December 1, the bench issued a slew of directions to the States to fill up the consumer commission vacancies by the end of January 2022.

Case Title: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India vs. Union of India and ors,  SMW (C) 2/2021

Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic:

The Supreme Court had in April 2021 decided to take up suo the case to deal with COVID19 related issues and distribution of Essential Supplies and Services during Pandemic. The Bench issued directions on several important issues including oxygen shortage, vaccination drive and price policy, availability of Remdesivir and other important, protection to covid warriors,etc.

The Court had made a prima facie observation that the Centre's vaccination policy, which does not provide free vaccination for those in the age-group of 18 to 44 years, as "arbitrary and irrational" and had asked the Centre to revisit the same. The Court flagged several issues with the Centre's vaccine policy, and observed that the policy of paid vaccination to 18-44 years is prima facie "arbitrary and irrational". The Court also sought to know how the budgetary allocation of Rs.35,000 crores have been spent to procure vaccines and why they can't be used to provide free vaccination to 18-44 years age group.

The Court had also criticized the dual pricing of vaccines procured by the States and Centre. Further, the Court suggested that the Centre should directly procure vaccines, rather than allowing states to compete in open markets.

Following the critical observations of the bench, the Central Government revised its vaccine policy, deciding to drop the dual vaccine pricing policy and to centrally procure vaccine. The Central Government also decided to extend free vaccination to everyone above the age of 18 years.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat had also directed no coercive action against any citizen for putting out an SOS call on social media seeking medical help for COVID and had strictly said that contempt action will be taken against police officers who clampdown on citizens who ventilate their grievances with respect to COVID in public platforms

The Court had flagged the digital divide afflicting the accessibility to the CoWIN portal by stating that it could have serious implications on right to equality and right to health. The Court had also commended the outstanding work of healthcare professionals during the crisis.

Case Title: In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, SMW (C) 3/2021

Delay In Release Of Convicts After Grant of Bail

On July 16th, Supreme Court had taken the suo motu case on the issue of delay of the release of prisoners after granting of bail The cognisance was prompted by a news report which stated that the convicts lodged in Agra Central Jail have not been released even after 3 days of the order granting them bail.

On July 8, the Supreme Court had ordered to "immediately" release 13 prisoners on interim bail, after finding that they have been languishing in jail for periods ranging from 14 to 22 years, despite establishing that they were juveniles at the time of offence. The maximum period of sentence for an offence committed as a juvenile is three years. However, a newspaper report showed that they were not released "immediately", as the prison authorities were awaiting the receipt of the Supreme Court order by post.

While expressing concern about the plight of the jail- inmates not released despite bail orders passed due to delay in communication of such orders, the Supreme Court had approved the use of an electronic system named FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records) for transmission of e-authenticated copies of orders.

Case Title: Delay In Release Of Convicts After Grant of Bail, SMW(C) 4/2021

Kanwar Yatra in State of UP amid COVID :

The Supreme Court had taken up the suo motu case against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to allow the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and observed that religious sentiments are subservient to the fundamental right to life and health. The Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot go ahead with the Kanwar Yatra, especially so when the Union Government has taken a stand against holding the same.

"We are of the view that this is a matter which concerns everyone of us as citizens of India, and goes to the very heart of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which has a pride of place in the fundamental rights Chapter of our Constitution. The health of the citizenry of India and their right to "life" are paramount .All other sentiments, al beit religious, are subservient to this most basic fundamental right", the Bench had observed. Following the intervention of the Court, the UP Government decided to revoke the permission granted for Kanwar Yatra.

The Court also made similar observations in the case regarding the lockdown relaxations announced by the Kerala Government ahead of the Bakrid festival. If the relaxations announced by the Kerala Government lead to any "untoward spread of COVID-19 disease", action will be taken against those responsible, warned the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Alarming Newspaper Report Regarding Kanwar Yatra in State of UP, SMW(C) 5/2021.

Children In Street Situations

The Supreme Court in November 2021 registered a suo moto case to deal with the issue of street children. On 15th November, the Court directed all the District Magistrates/ Collectors of all the state governments and UTs to take steps in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure for Care and Protection of Children in Street Situations prepared by NCPCR in 2020 and also file status reports of their implementation of the SOPs.

A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai had taken suo moto action while considering another suo moto matter regarding the protection of children in protection homes which was registered last year in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The same bench also addressed the issues relating to children who became orphans during the pandemic, and passed a series of directions to ensure their identification by states for welfare measures. The bench renamed the suo motu case taken in 2020 to deal with children in protection homes as ""In re: Children in need of Care and Protection due to Loss of Parents during Covid-19". The Court has issued directions to prevent the illegal adoption of orphans and to ensure uninterrupted education of children who lost their parents during the pandemic.

Case Title: In Re: Children In Street Situations, SMW(C) 6/2021

Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges & Cognisance of Death Of Additional Sessions Judge Dhanbad:

The  Supreme Court on 30 July had taken suo motu cognisance of the killing of an Additional District Judge in Jharkhand, Uttam Anand, who was knocked down by a vehicle while on his morning jog at Dhanbad on July 28. A Division Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant had flagged the State's negligence in the matter. The Bench opined that being well aware that Dhanbad is a mafia area where several advocates have been killed and judges have been attacked in the past, the State should have provided some protection to the Judicial officer at least around their colonies.

The Court had also expressed displeasure at the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Intelligence Bureau for not adequately responding to complaints regarding harassment and threatening of judges. It had directed the CBI to submit weekly reports on the progress of the investigation to the Jharkhand High Court and requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to monitor the investigation.

On the issue of security of judges, the Court also imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on states which failed to intimate the top court of the details of the measures for safeguarding the security of judges.

Case Title: In Re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges (Death Of Additional Sessions Judge Dhanbad), SMW (Crl) 2/2021

Lakhimpur Kheri case

On October 3, vehicles in the convoy of Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Mishra, drove into a group of farmers who were holding a protest march in Lakhimpur Kheri in Uttar Pradesh against the farm law. Eight persons, including four farmers and one journalist, were killed in the incident, which created massive outrage across the country.

Two lawyers wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India seeking a court-monitored probe into the matter. A bench led by the Chief Justice of India took cognizance of the letter petition and converted it into a PIL. 

The Court passed several scathing critical remarks against the UP Police, especially for not arresting the main accused Ajay Mishra. Following the Court's remarks, the police arrested him. The Court continued its monitoring of the investigation in subsequent stages and reconstituted the Special Investigation Team by including senior IPS officers who do not belong to UP. The Court also appointed former P&H High Court judge Justice RK Jain to oversee the SIT probe. The Court had earlier observed that CBI may not be a solution for the case "for reasons best known".

The SIT recently filed a chargesheet against Ashish Mishra and other accused finding the killing of farmers to be a "pre-planned conspiracy". The timely intervention of the Supreme Court averted the possible derailment of the investigation in the case.

Case : In Re Violence In Lakhimpur Kheri(UP) Leading To Loss Of Life| WP(Crl) No.426/2021