This chapter examines the practice of the constitutional courts in India taking up matters suo motu (on their own initiative) without being petitioned by a claimant or party, to address a situation the judges regard as requiring extraordinary intervention on the part of the court. We assemble the available data about the incidence of this practice of suo motu intervention, its frequency, form, and results. We seek to explain why and how the Indian higher courts engage in this practice, and speculate about the effects of this practice on the courts and on Indian social and political life. For illustrative purposes, we describe the case of a recent intervention initiated by the Supreme Court, in response to a newschapter report of a gang-rape in a village a thousand miles away.

The Indian Supreme Court sits in panels and can have up to 31 judges. This chapter explores how the Indian Supreme Court developed its current structure and the impact of this structure on its functioning. It argues that the Supreme Court’s structure has a range of inter-related effects that includes increasing access to the Court, producing a “polyvocal” jurisprudence that destabilizes stare decisis, spurring experimentation among judges, fostering a “Chief Justice dominant” Court, and reducing the perceived partisanship of judges. Mapping the structure of the Court, as well as the Court’s relationship with the rest of the judiciary, helps us appreciate how judges ultimately interpret the law and the Constitution not in isolation, but within a larger judicial architecture.