By Dr. Gyan Pathak
At a time when state is increasingly seen resorting to illegal detentions, imminent demolition, deportations, custodial violence and several other actions against common citizens at any time of the day and night, Supreme Court of India’s agreeing to consider framing of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to allow any common citizen, not alone the big people of the country, to knock on the door of the courts any time is a significant development in protecting people’s life and liberty against state highhandedness.
Access to justice for big people and important personalities in the country at any hour of day and night was not barred in the past, but such a facility was not provided to the common citizen so far. Though Kerala had launched first round the clock online court initiative in the country in November 2024, and thereafter round the clock digital e-courts were made operational in the country, their scope in protecting life and liberty of the people has been limited.
On July 14, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has now kindled a great hope among common citizens that they can too will have access to justice round the clock for protection of their life and liberty. The Bench while hearing the petition filed by a Supreme Court advocate, Ms Maheravish Rein, agreed to consider framing SOP, so that common people can access justice anytime, night and day.
Ms Maheravish Rein had submitted that the courts cannot afford to close especially in the background of credible reports of late-night arrests, early morning demolition drives, and deportation or executive actions undertaken during weekends or holidays.
She had submitted, “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.”
Ms Rein had also mentioned , “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… 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.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of the Bench, pointed out that courts never “close-up” referring to the digital access to justice through e-filing. He said, “A letter, an email or a phone call would be enough to activate the justice system.”
Nevertheless, Ms Rein while agreeing to Justice Bagchi, pointed out, “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.”
On hearing he argument, the Bench noted that an SOP could indeed be put in place for justice in time in cases where life and liberty are involved. CJI noted, “Maybe the response from the court should come within an hour of such an urgent mention.”
The Supreme Court bench also responded to the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s suggestion that the preparation of an SOP should be undertaken on administrative rather than judicial side, and indicated that the petition may have to be heard and orders passed on the judicial side, because the High Courts did not come within the administrative ambit of the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has also agreed to explore issuance of directions to High Courts to evolve suitable procedures or rosters for the hearing of urgent matters during off-hours and creation of “Emergency Constitutional Benches” or designated duty judges, accessible through electronic filing and digital platforms.
The importance of the Bench’s agreement for framing an SOP can be rightly understood in the light of the 1986 judgement of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Legal Support Society vs Chief Justice of India, that had underscored that Supreme court was people’s court and must function as the symbol of the hopes and aspirations of millions of people of the country. The bench was hearing that case which was filed in the court questioning whether the court would show the same anxiety in the cases of “small men” as it showed in the matter of bail application of two industrialists in a late-night sitting in September 1986.
Now Ms Rein argued that Constitution of India does not sleep… it cannot fall silent at night, nor can liberty await the morning bell of the courts. She argued further that in a system where executive power may operate at any hour, the protection of fundamental rights cannot remain constrained by the temporal boundaries of court schedules. The right to access justice transcends beyond ordinary court hours, weekends and public holidays.
It should be worth recalling that according to the amended Supreme Court rules from July 14, 2025, there is a provision of “no work, unless of an urgent nature, shall be admitted after 4.30 p.m.” on normal working days. On Saturdays, offices are open from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and “no work, unless of an urgent nature, shall be admitted after 12 noon”. CJI has discretion to decide when the offices of the court would remain open during partial court working days, Christmas and New Year holidays. (IPA Service)
