Plea filed in Supreme Court to ensure 24x7 availability of courts to hear urgent life and liberty cases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider whether a protocol can be developed so that urgent cases involving imminent threats to rights to life and liberty are heard promptly, even beyond the regular working hours of courts [Maheravish Rein v. Union of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Advocate Maheravish Rein on the issue.

"Issue notice to the High Courts on the limited point of a possible SOP to address the said issue," the Court said.

Rein's plea seeks a permanent, uniform institutional mechanism allowing citizens facing late-night arrests, early-morning demolitions, or weekend deportations to access constitutional remedies without waiting for regular court hours.

The plea points out that the present framework largely restricts accesss to judicial remedies to designated court hours, working days and limited vacation benches.

"As a result, citizens facing urgent violations of liberty and fundamental rights often find themselves without effective judicial recourse during nights, weekends, public holidays and court recesses," it says.

It seeks directions to ensure timely access to justice in such cases. Among other prayers, the petitioner calls for the evolution of suitable procedures or rosters, including in High Courts, to hear urgent cases involving fundamental rights beyond regular court hours.

The plea further calls for the creation of Emergency Constitutional Benches or designated duty judges to hear such urgent matters. Such Benches should also be accessible through digital platforms in such cases, the plea says.

Rein appeared before the Court in person today and highlighted the severe procedural delays built into the current system. She emphasised that the current framework places a heavy procedural burden on litigants during overnight emergencies.

"If I file something after 6 PM for a very urgent thing… then next morning my clerk is before the registry telling them how important it is. Think about the litigant... I am on life and liberty cases," she said.

CJI Surya Kant, while sympathetic to the underlying intent, countered with the harsh logistical realities faced by the court’s registry. He pointed to how the system frequently gets clogged by poorly drafted, bloated petitions.

"It is not a regular practice… but it is often seen how vague and incomplete paperbooks are filed," the CJI observed.

The Bench eventually inidicated its willingness to consider a systemic solution.

The Court also flagged concerns about whether the round-the-clock availability of courts could be misused even to press for the hearing of non-urgent cases.

This was after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that it is difficult to decide which cases must be heard on urgent basis beyond regular working hours.

"If tomorrow, I file a plea at 11 PM, about a 9 AM COC next morning - then how can bench hear it at midnight? Then also, it is difficult to bifurcate the urgency. This can be handled on the administrative side," said Mehta.

"Yes, it can be misused also. This should only be for matters of life and liberty," responded CJI Kant, before issuing notice in the matter.

[Read Live Coverage]