For justice around the clock | Explained
The Supreme Court has decided to examine a writ petition for a framework to urgently set up Benches at any time of the day; the petition argues 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
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The has agreed to examine a petition seeking a uniform, institutionalised framework for out-of-hours (night and holiday) court hearings to protect citizens facing urgent threats to life and liberty. The plea highlights the increasing incidence of late-night executive actions, such as arrests and demolitions, and argues that access to justice and the protection of fundamental rights should not be constrained by standard court schedules.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This issue directly engages with [Article 21] (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) and [Article 32] (Right to Constitutional Remedies). The core argument is that if executive actions threatening fundamental rights can occur 24/7, judicial remedies must also be accessible around the clock to prevent irreversible harm. The current system relies on the extraordinary initiative of individual judges or the discretionary power of the acting as the Master of the Roster to constitute special Benches for urgent hearings. Establishing a standardized protocol for 'Emergency Constitutional Benches' would institutionalize this access, moving it from an ad-hoc privilege to a reliable mechanism for safeguarding rights. UPSC aspirants should analyze this in the context of the evolving interpretation of access to justice as an integral part of , and the necessary evolution of court procedures to meet contemporary challenges posed by executive actions.
Governance
From a governance perspective, the petition underscores the need for institutional reform within the judiciary to enhance accountability and transparency. The existing primarily govern regular working hours, lacking a formal protocol for initiating off-hours hearings, leaving the process reliant on manual urgency letters and discretionary approvals. The proposal to integrate digital ecosystems, similar to systems in the UK and Singapore, or Kerala's 24x7 online court, represents a necessary modernization of judicial infrastructure. This integration would not only improve access but also standardize the process, potentially mitigating criticisms of inconsistency or bias in granting urgent hearings, as seen in past high-profile cases. The establishment of designated duty judges and electronic filing systems for emergencies reflects a shift towards a more responsive and systematized judicial governance framework.
Ethics
The debate touches upon crucial ethical dimensions of judicial functioning, specifically concerning equity and fairness. Past instances of special off-hours hearings have sometimes drawn criticism for apparent bias, raising questions about whether the 'little man' has the same access to urgent judicial intervention as influential figures. The principle of equal access to justice demands that the availability of emergency legal remedies should not be contingent on the petitioner's social status, resources, or the high profile nature of the case. Furthermore, the convening of a special Bench by a former CJI to hear allegations against himself highlights the ethical necessity of clear, impartial procedures to avoid conflicts of interest. An institutionalised SOP for out-of-hours hearings is vital for ensuring that the judiciary operates impartially and that its extraordinary powers are exercised equitably to protect all citizens, reinforcing public trust in the rule of law.