The Supreme Court of India has agreed to consider establishing a Standard Operating Procedure to facilitate access to constitutional courts during off-duty hours for urgent matters involving life and personal liberty.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued notice on Tuesday regarding a petition seeking round-the-clock judicial access. The bench has directed the petitioner to submit concrete proposals for an administrative framework that could govern after-hours filings.
Debating Misuse And Scope
During the proceedings, the bench and the government raised concerns over the potential exploitation of off-hours access. Chief Justice Kant noted that the proposed guidelines might need to be confined strictly to cases concerning life and liberty to prevent abuse.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned that establishing an open-ended night court system could lead to contrived emergencies. He cited hypothetical scenarios where commercial litigants might seek midnight hearings for routine business disputes to secure ex-parte orders. Mehta suggested that the Supreme Court handle the issue administratively rather than directing High Courts judicially at this stage, or alternatively, allow individual High Courts to draft state-specific procedures.
Chief Justice Kant agreed that the mechanism could be vulnerable to misuse. He noted that while he had previously suggested High Courts operate continuously like government hospitals, any such transition requires a concrete, ground-level plan to be effective. He also pointed out that lawyers occasionally submit vague applications, which complicates immediate scheduling.
Graded Access Versus Denial Of Justice
Justice Bagchi clarified that existing administrative barriers do not constitute a denial of justice. He emphasized that official and unofficial hours cannot be treated identically, pointing to a distinction between standard daytime operations and the graded access provided after hours.
According to Justice Bagchi, the introduction of online filing systems means the court remains technically open. He observed that friction often arises from a discrepancy between a litigant’s expectations and the court registry’s independent evaluation of urgency. To streamline this, Justice Bagchi suggested exploring a rule requiring the court registry to respond to urgent communications within a set timeframe, such as one hour.
Litigant Challenges Under Current System
The petition was initiated by advocate Maheravish Rein, who argued that current night-time access is highly restricted, particularly for disadvantaged individuals who rely on legal aid services that only operate during the day. Under the current setup, Rein stated, litigants with urgent grievances are routinely forced to wait until the following morning.
Rein referenced constitutional provisions under Article 32, which protect the right to petition the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights and dictate that this right cannot be suspended except as provided by the Constitution.
To illustrate the issue, Rein shared a personal account of an interfaith couple who sought her assistance at night. After police intervened and separated the couple, Rein attempted to contact the court registry for an emergency hearing but was instructed to wait until morning. Justice Bagchi noted that while the registry officer’s assessment in that instance may have been incorrect, it represented a disagreement over urgency rather than a systemic refusal of court access.
