An important issue regarding the separation of powers and the scope of judicial authority within a constitutional framework. The idea of a court, particularly the Supreme Court, acting *suo moto* (on its own motion) to address matters outside the conventional jurisdictions can indeed raise significant questions about the boundaries of judicial power and its impact on democratic governance.

An important issue regarding the separation of powers and the scope of judicial authority within a constitutional framework. The idea of a court, particularly the Supreme Court, acting *suo moto* (on its own motion) to address matters outside the conventional jurisdictions can indeed raise significant questions about the boundaries of judicial power and its impact on democratic governance.

In democratic systems like India, the Constitution carefully delineates the roles and powers of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Each branch operates within its defined limits, ensuring a balance that prevents the overreach of any one branch. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is tasked with interpreting the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring justice. However, its powers are not unlimited and are bound by the provisions of the Constitution.

The *suo moto* jurisdiction allows the court to take up matters on its own, usually in situations where there is a pressing need to address issues of public interest or fundamental rights. While this power can be a tool for safeguarding justice, it must be exercised with caution to avoid encroaching on the domains of the legislature and executive.

Comparing this to other judicial systems, like in the U.S. or the U.K., shows a different approach. Courts in these countries typically do not exercise *suo moto* powers as extensively as in India. Their judiciary largely acts upon cases brought before them by parties with standing. This restraint is viewed as a way to maintain the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy.

The creation of remedies, like curative petitions in India, is another area where judicial innovation has stretched the traditional boundaries. While such remedies aim to correct gross miscarriages of justice, they are exceptional and should not be seen as a means for the judiciary to rewrite or extend its jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution prescribes.

In summary, while *suo moto* actions and remedies like curative petitions serve important roles in the Indian judiciary, they must be exercised within the constitutional framework to maintain the balance of power among the branches of government. Any overreach risks undermining the very principles that uphold the democratic structure.