Supreme Court to Examine Plea Seeking Round-the-Clock Access to Courts in Emergency Cases
In a significant development aimed at strengthening access to justice, the Supreme Court has agreed to examine a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the creation of a nationwide mechanism that would allow citizens to approach constitutional courts outside regular working hours, on weekends and public holidays in cases involving life and personal liberty. The petition argues that constitutional protections should remain available at all times, particularly during emergencies when delays can cause irreversible harm.
The PIL, filed by advocate Maheravish Rein appearing in person, contends that although the Constitution guarantees remedies against illegal State action, the existing judicial framework effectively limits access to courts to office hours and designated vacation benches. According to the petitioner, urgent situations such as illegal detention, custodial violence, imminent demolition of homes, forced deportation, or medical emergencies often arise late at night or during holidays, leaving affected persons with little or no immediate judicial recourse.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, has agreed to consider the issue. Rather than deciding the matter immediately, the Bench has sought responses from High Courts across the country on the feasibility of establishing a uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling urgent petitions outside normal court hours.
The proposed SOP seeks to institutionalise emergency judicial access instead of leaving it to ad hoc arrangements. The petitioner has urged the Court to frame a transparent system under which designated judges, registries and court staff remain available to hear exceptionally urgent matters at any hour, ensuring that constitutional remedies are not dependent on personal contacts or extraordinary administrative intervention.
The plea draws attention to several instances where judges have conducted late-night or holiday hearings in exceptional circumstances. These include cases involving death penalty appeals, habeas corpus petitions, demolitions and other matters affecting fundamental rights. However, the petition argues that such interventions have largely depended on extraordinary circumstances rather than an established institutional framework, resulting in inconsistent access to justice across jurisdictions.
Legal experts believe that if accepted, the proposal could significantly reshape India’s emergency judicial system by creating a predictable and uniform process for approaching courts in life-and-liberty matters. Such a framework could improve judicial responsiveness while balancing practical considerations such as judicial workload, registry staffing and technological infrastructure for after-hours hearings.
The Supreme Court’s decision to examine the PIL has sparked widespread discussion within the legal fraternity. While many lawyers have welcomed the move as a step towards making constitutional remedies genuinely accessible at all times, others have emphasized the need to ensure that any round-the-clock system is carefully designed to prevent misuse and remain administratively sustainable. The matter is expected to evolve further after the High Courts submit their views, following which the Supreme Court may consider framing comprehensive guidelines applicable across the country.
