Under what
circumstances can the courts of country take Suo-moto action? Doesn't this
executive oversight digress Judiciary from its main function of speedy justice?
There is no separate guideline for a court to take
cognizance of any matter.
Suo-motto action is an inherent power of the court. Mostly
higher Judiciary.
It can never be said that Judiciary is digressing from it
prime duty of rendering justice.
So practically,
higher courts of the country can take cognizance of any matter. For example-
recently SC took suo moto action on the status of Ganga cleaning.
Yes
For example.. Epistolary jurisdiction of the judiciary, it
is nowhere written.
It is the power of the court to take cognizance of a matter
based on a letter addressed to it.
This power u see Amar, cannot deter the separation of Powers
(though Limited in India ) that we follow..
Tracking executive
actions and making sure they're held accountable- that is also under the definition
of conventional "Justice"? In addition to the civil and criminal
adversarial matters- which are considered as conventional forms of justice.
That will destroy the natural Balance in favour of one of
the Organs.
What is the mandate
of Higher courts of the land madam?
Ends of JUSTICE.
Wasn’t the issue
taken up by SC in wake of a PIL filed by an activist (Cleaning Ganga)? Then how
is it Suo-moto?
Ganga issue was not suo-moto, but SC has taken up other
matters on suo-motto in its recent history
Ganga clean up issue can be tied to Article 21. Violation of
right to life under A 21 and right to clean environment inherently under A 21.
Within the same means of justice add to it-
the separation of powers; wondering if we do really need the higher courts of
the country to step in and held the executive accountable.
Because to me, that's eating into the time
of the judiciary, when crores of cases are already being piled over.
Criminal charges and speedy remedial is
equally (if not more) important than ensuring social justice in the form of
tracking executives.
Suo-moto power of a court is inherent. Don’t link it with the
time of the Judiciary. When anybody can file a case for another on a PIL, why can’t
the Court take cognizance itself for the benefit of the larger number of poor
people who cannot and do not have means to approach the Court.
The time of judiciary cannot be said to be wasted.
Yes I agree there is a lot of pendency in the Judiciary, but
that should in no way hinder the process of rendering justice.
Although courts have
the power, isn’t improper to take suo-moto action?
Suo-moto is a means of judicial activism by the Courts.
Ma'am, are suo moto n
PIL restricted only to SC and HC.. or lower courts also having that?
Judicial Activism is not limited to the higher
Judiciary but we do not see Lower Judiciary indulging in Judicial Activism
No comments:
Post a Comment