The Supreme Court issued notice to all High Courts across the country to explore the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to address the urgent listing of matters during off-hours, specifically targeting cases involving threats to life and personal liberty.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice V Mohanna heard a plea moved by Advocate Maheravish Rein, who sought a streamlined, official mechanism for litigants to secure urgent hearings after regular court hours.

During the proceedings, Advocate Maheravish Rein, appearing in person, emphasized the intense difficulties faced by litigants in emergency situations, particularly after 6:00 PM. She submitted that under the current system, advocates had to rely on convincing the registry officials early the following morning, which often proved too late for critical cases.

She submitted, "My grievance is this if I am a poor man and want to have access to justice, I can only the Legal Aid Committee only at day and not at night. I can only access the Court only at day and not at night...when its very crucial to me...Does that happen to every litigant to want to access the Court?"

Justice Bagchi, "What you want to change is the official and unofficial hours...we do not agree....there is a difference between access to justice during official hours, and there is a difference and different criteria to propose access to justice beyond official hours...if that was not there then your case is made out of non-access...But a graded access to justice is not a denial to justice."

Chief Justice Kant said, "Give us an SOP...what is the procedure we can follow after the court hours...we will ensure access to justice."

To illustrate the urgency, Rein shared a personal professional encounter from 2025 involving an inter-faith couple who sought police protection at 8:00 PM. Despite the immediate threat to their safety, they were kept waiting by the police, and the young woman was eventually handed over to her parents late at night. Rein stated that she spent the night attempting to contact various judges until 3:00 AM, but could not secure an emergency hearing, leaving the couple without legal recourse during those critical hours.

The Bench, while acknowledging the gravity of cases involving life and liberty, highlighted several administrative and practical challenges in keeping the doors of the court open indefinitely during off-hours.

CJI Surya Kant pointed out that the privilege of urgent listings was frequently prone to administrative misuse. He observed that paperbooks filed by advocates were often incomplete, vague, or filled with disorganized photocopies and digital screenshots rather than proper legal pleadings.

The CJI also recalled that, in response to requests from the Bar, the court had previously constituted five benches during vacations, only to face a deluge of adjournment slips from the very lawyers who requested them.

Justice Bagchi further observed that with the introduction of modern e-filing systems, online access remained open. He noted that while a phone call to the registrar or a formal letter could still receive a response, there was a clear need for a structured SOP to handle response times and determine what constitutes genuine urgency.

The Solicitor General (SG), appearing for the Union, supported the view that the issue should be resolved on the administrative side rather than through a rigid judicial mandate. He submitted that determining the degree of urgency at late hours was highly complex.

The SG pointed out that if a litigant filed a petition at 11:00 PM concerning a matter scheduled for 9:00 AM the next morning, it would be highly impractical for a bench to assemble at midnight.

Agreeing with the SG's submissions, the CJI remarked that any such urgent mechanism must be strictly circumscribed to prevent exploitation, limiting its application solely to genuine emergencies concerning the life and liberty of individuals.

Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to interact with the registry officials to provide constructive inputs.

Ultimately, the Bench issued notice to all the High Courts, limiting the scope of inquiry to the feasibility of drafting a uniform SOP that could systematically handle extremely urgent, off-hours listings without disrupting the administrative fabric of the judiciary.

Cause Title: Maheravish Rein v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 376/2026]

Tags: