The Delhi High Court recently declined to urgently address a public interest litigation (PIL) that accused the Delhi Police of using excessive force during student protests. The Chief Justice reportedly advised against involving the court in such matters. Similarly, the Supreme Court also refrained from urgently listing a comparable petition. While the courts have discretionary power over the urgency and nature of cases they choose to hear, this decision has sparked debate over whether it was appropriate.
Judicial Discretion and Suo Motu Jurisdiction
Indian constitutional courts possess significant discretion in selecting which cases to prioritize, especially within their PIL and suo motu jurisdictions. This flexibility allows the courts to address issues of public importance, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake. However, the courts have been criticized for not establishing consistent guidelines for when to intervene urgently.
PILs were introduced to make justice accessible to marginalized sections of society and to hold public authorities accountable despite procedural hurdles. The landmark case of SP Gupta v. Union of India (1981) emphasized the need for judicial intervention in public wrongs to prevent legal remedies from being inaccessible, potentially leading to public unrest and compromising the rule of law.
Similarly, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983), the Court stressed the importance of relaxing procedural rules to enforce fundamental rights effectively. Suo motu jurisdiction extends these principles by allowing courts to take up issues independently, without waiting for a litigant’s initiative.
Precedents for Urgent Judicial Intervention
Given these precedents, the allegations of police brutality against protesters strongly align with the principles underpinning PILs and suo motu jurisdiction. They directly concern the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as well as freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s past interventions, such as its immediate response to reports of police violence in 2013 (In Re: Press Reports Captioning ‘Punjab Cops Beat up Woman in Public’), illustrate the Court’s willingness to act swiftly in cases involving state excess and fundamental rights violations.
A notable parallel is the 2011 Ramlila Maidan incident, where the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance within a day of the Delhi Police’s forceful clearing of protestors, resulting in injuries and a fatality. The Court’s decision to summon government representatives and demand explanations from law enforcement led to a ruling that deemed the police action unconstitutional.
Current Judicial Responses
Recently, the Delhi High Court agreed to hear the petition concerning alleged police excess, directing authorities to preserve evidence and setting a hearing for September 11. However, the Supreme Court has yet to initiate suo motu proceedings. Interestingly, the Chief Justice suggested that the Court might consider intervention if protests disrupt access to the institution, highlighting a potential disparity in responsiveness to institutional versus public rights concerns.
Swapnil Tripathi, who leads Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, emphasizes that these views are personal.
