The Supreme Court agreed to evaluate a Standard Operating Procedure for round-the-clock judicial access in urgent cases.
Chief Justice Surya Kant headed the three-judge Bench hearing the petition filed by advocate Maheravish Rein.
The petition highlights the need for continuous protection against nocturnal detentions, dawn demolitions, and weekend expulsions.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, consented to evaluate the creation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure round-the-clock court access for urgent cases involving life and liberty, a report by The Hindu said. These include illegal detentions, imminent demolition of homes, deportations, custodial violence or other state actions.
Maheravish Rein, an advocate at the apex court filed the petition which was heard by a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. According to the report, the plea cited rising instances of sudden executive actions during non-working hours. Nocturnal detentions, dawn bulldozing activities and weekend expulsions necessitate continuous constitutional protection which prompted Rein to argue that courts cannot afford to shut their doors entirely given these credible reports of executive action at odd hours.
The Constitutional Argument
"The present institutional framework of courts largely restricts access to judicial remedies to designated court hours, working days and limited vacation benches. As a result, individuals facing urgent violations of liberty and fundamental rights often encounter significant practical difficulty in obtaining immediate judicial protection during nights, weekends, public holidays and court recesses," Rein said.
Rein further argued that fundamental rights require constant protection. She stressed that theoretical access to justice holds no practical value without a continuous operational mechanism.
"The absence of a structured and institutionalised mechanism ensuring continuous judicial accessibility may result in irreversible consequences before affected persons are able to approach constitutional courts," she argued.
She proposed that constitutional safeguards must extend far beyond daytime operations.
"The protection of liberty cannot remain dependent upon the temporal boundaries of court schedules. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the Constitution cannot fall silent at night, nor can the protection of liberty await the morning bell of the courts," the Supreme Court Advocate said.
Technology and Graded Access
The Bench discussed the role of existing digital infrastructure in facilitating continuous availability. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a part of the Bench, proposed a "graded approach" for after-hours justice.
Bagchi clarified that varied after-hours access does not equate to an absolute denial of justice. The digital era ensures that courts never fully close when there is digital access to justice through e-filing. "A letter, an email or a phone call would be enough to activate the justice system," Bagchi said.
Rein acknowledged that electronic court records, digital filing and virtual hearing platforms significantly enhance remote capabilities.
However, she argued that these technological capabilities have not yet been integrated into a uniform institutional framework.
"However, these technological capabilities have not yet been integrated into a uniform institutional framework enabling emergency judicial access for urgent constitutional matters outside regular court hours," she said.
SOP and Jurisdictional Hurdles
The Bench acknowledged the strict need to minimise delays in critical situations as prompt judicial intervention remains necessary for life and liberty matters. The court stated that an SOP could significantly reduce response times.
"Maybe the response from the court should come within an hour of such an urgent mention," Justice Kant said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that the apex court prepare this protocol through its administrative wing rather than the judicial side.
Kant immediately clarified the jurisdictional boundaries saying that in India's federal framework, State High Courts fall outside the administrative jurisdiction of the apex court, indicating that the petition may have to be heard and orders passed on the judicial side.
(With Inputs From The Hindu)
