The Supreme People's Court (SPC) has released the 16th volume of selected judicial reform cases from courts nationwide, featuring four typical cases involving elevated jurisdiction, as part of efforts to strengthen judicial supervision and guidance, ensure uniform application of the law, and promote judicial fairness.

Improving the mechanism of elevated jurisdiction, which allows higher-level courts to hear cases originally under the jurisdiction of lower-level courts, is a key measure to strengthen judicial supervision and guidance, promote consistency in the application of the law and ensure strict and impartial administration of justice. It is also a major reform task outlined in the Opinions of the Communist Party of China Central Committee on Strengthening Adjudication Work in the New Era and the 6th Five-Year Reform Outline of the People's Courts (2024–28).

To further leverage the guiding role of typical cases and promote the standardized, targeted application of elevated jurisdiction, the SPC issued guiding opinions in 2023 on strengthening and regulating elevated jurisdiction and retrials of cases by higher-level courts. It subsequently released two batches of typical cases in 2024 and 2025, respectively, with the aim of using individual cases to provide guidance for the handling of similar cases.

To further harness the role of elevated jurisdiction in clarifying adjudication rules, promoting uniform application of the law, facilitating fair and efficient dispute resolution, and supporting high-quality economic and social development, the SPC selected four cases heard under elevated jurisdiction by the Guangdong High People's Court, the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court, the Chengdu Railway Transport Intermediate Court and the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region for inclusion in the latest collection.

Among the selected cases, some have served as benchmarks for unifying standards for the application of law in handling frequently occurring cases within their respective jurisdictions. Others have supported and supervised administrative authorities in exercising their powers in accordance with the law, while still others have effectively safeguarded major public interests and provided strong judicial support for high-quality economic and social development.

Under relevant rules, lower-level courts should request that a higher-level court hear a first-instance case when they consider it inappropriate to adjudicate the case themselves. Such circumstances include cases involving major national or public interests, novel or particularly complex legal issues, the potential to establish exemplary judgments or provide guidance on the application of the law, or significant differences in how the law is applied in similar cases. Higher-level courts may also assume jurisdiction over such cases on their own initiative.

The SPC said it will continue to guide courts at all levels in applying the elevated jurisdiction mechanism in a proactive and standardized manner. Cases involving major interests, issues of significance for the uniform application of the law, or potential external interference will be heard by higher-level courts when appropriate.

These efforts aim to strengthen the exemplary and guiding role of elevated jurisdiction, improve mechanisms for ensuring and evaluating judicial fairness, and enhance the fairness, consistency, and authority of judicial decisions, while achieving an integrated approach to their political, legal, and social effects.