The story so far: The Supreme Court on July 14 decided to examine a writ petition filed by a woman lawyer, advocate Maheravish Rein, for framing a uniform and institutional framework to urgently set up Benches, night or day, no matter the hour, for citizens who approach constitutional courts, including the High Courts, in cases affecting their life and liberty.
Ms. Rein’s has filed the case against the backdrop of reports that late-night arrests, illegal detentions, early-morning demolitions of homes, deportations, custodial abuse, and other executive excesses have been on the rise.
A Constitution Bench in Bihar Legal Support Society versus Chief Justice of India in 1986 had underscored that the Supreme Court was a “people’s court” and must function as the “symbol of the hopes and aspirations of millions of people in the country”. The judgment was a sequel to the top court’s speedy consideration of the bail application of two industrialists in a late-night sitting in September 1986. A writ petition had been filed in the court questioning whether the court would show the same anxiety in the cases of “small men”.
Forty years later, Ms. Rein pointed out that the present institutional framework of constitutional 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. She cautioned that the absence of a standard operating procedure ensuring continuous judicial accessibility may result in irreversible consequences before affected persons are able to approach constitutional courts.
Also Read | Urgent cases to be mentioned only before CJI-led Bench: Supreme Court
Is there a Fundamental Right to access to justice at all times?
The Constitution does not sleep, and operates as a living and continuous guarantee of liberty. The protection of Fundamental Rights cannot remain contingent upon the opening and closing hours of courts. The Constitution cannot fall silent at night, nor can liberty await the morning bell of the courts.
Ms. Rein 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. The right to access justice transcends beyond ordinary court hours, weekends, and public holidays. The justice system in countries such as the U.K, Singapore, Sweden, and the U.S. has institutionalised out-of-hours justice administration systems integrating digital ecosystems. Kerala had launched a 24X7 online court initiative to tackle high pendency and delays. However, the initiative seemed to have escaped the constitutional courts in the country.
The Supreme Court has now agreed to explore issuance of directions to the 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.
Comment | Holding the Court accountable amid democratic strain
What the Supreme Court Rules say about out-of-hours court sittings?
The Rules primarily define formal court schedules and establish temporal boundaries for the Supreme Court Registry.
An amendment brought into force in the Supreme Court Rules 2013 from July 14 last year said that “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”. The amended rule finally left it to the Chief Justice of India’s discretion to decide when the offices of the court would remain open during partial court working days, Christmas and New Year holidays.
Rules do not provide a protocol for initiating hearings in the middle of the night, over weekends, or on strict holidays, and leaves it completely to the extraordinary initiative of the judiciary in individual cases.
What are the steps to be taken for a midnight or off-hour court hearing?
Counsel for the petitioner seeking a midnight hearing has to prepare a letter of urgency giving specific reasons, like a pre-dawn execution or imminent arrest or breakdown of constitutional machinery. The memo must seek to convince that irreparable harm will be caused to life and liberty or the rule of law or governance unless the case is heard immediately. The letter, along with the written plea, must be filed before the Judicial Registrar, who would forward it to the residential office of the Chief Justice of India.
If satisfied by the imminent need for a hearing, the CJI uses his power as the “master of roster” to constitute a Bench of judges to hear the plea. Notice is served on the State or the Union governments as required.
What were some of the notable instances in which the Supreme Court and High Courts had held midnight/off-hours hearings?
The last years of the past decade and the current one have witnessed the Supreme Court Benches convene past midnight to hear death row convicts seeking a stay of their execution or political parties challenging government formations in States such as Karnataka and Maharashtra. A Delhi High Court Bench headed by Justice S. Muralidhar (now retired) sat at midnight to galvanise the police to protect injured victims of the 2020 riots and ensure they were able to reach hospitals. Controversially, Justice Muralidhar was transferred out of the Delhi High Court within hours.
In July 2015, a Special Bench was convened after midnight to hear a plea by Mumbai blasts case convict Yakub Memon for stay of his execution. The previous day had seen his case pass through multiple Benches of the court without getting any reprieve. His petition was rejected after a detailed hearing which went on till an hour before his scheduled execution. Surinder Koli, who was a convict in the Nithari serial murders case, however won reprieve when a top court Bench stayed his execution after a midnight hearing. Koli was acquitted in the Nithari case in November 2025.
There have been instances when the alacrity shown by the Supreme Court to convene special weekend hearings have come into question. One of them was an emergency Saturday hearing in 2022 to stay the acquittal of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba, a paraplegic, in an UAPA case accusing him of Maoist links. Mr. Saibaba died two years later largely believed to be from health complications caused by his prolonged incarceration. His death and that of Father Stan Swamy led to a petition filed by advocate Kaleeswaram Raj in the top court for humane prison facilities.
The Supreme Court faced criticism from among the public and even within the legal fraternity for the “extraordinary urgent listing” and fast-tracked bail hearing afforded to TV journalist Arnab Goswami. The then Supreme Court Bar Association president, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, wrote an open letter, asking if the “little man” languishing in jail for years would get a similar special treatment.
Most remarkable of Saturday emergency sittings was convened by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi (now retired) himself in 2019 after news reports of sexual harassment allegations levelled against him by a court employee. The Chief Justice had headed the Bench, inviting criticism of conflict of interest.
Published – July 15, 2026 11:18 am IST
