Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Mechanism For Urgent Hearings Beyond Regular Hours, Says E-Filing Allows Anytime Access
"A litigant apprehending an imminent violation of liberty is not required to physically approach a courtroom," the Court observed.
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain a petition seeking an institutional mechanism for urgent hearing of cases involving life and personal liberty (outside regular court hours).
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that the grievance of the petitioner stood adequately addressed in view of the existing institutional and procedural framework governing access to constitutional courts.
The Court however left it open for the petitioner, or any other stakeholder, to make a representation before the Registrar General of the concerned High Court, or the Chief Justice of India/Chief Justice of High Court (as the case may be) in case of individual grievances experienced in practice, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
"We find it appropriate to mention that judicial administration necessarily requires a careful balance between ensuring immediate access to justice and maintaining an orderly system of roster allocation and case management. The institutional mechanisms presently in place preserve that balance while simultaneously ensuring that no litigant is denied access to constitutional remedies simply because the grievance arises beyond ordinary court hours", the order stated.
In the context of the safeguards and measures already in place, the bench referred to the e-filing process of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which permit a litigant to institute a case at any point in the day, from any location, without being affected by physical opening of the court premises. It was noted that the e-filing system, alongwith Integrated Case Management System, ensures processing of a case regardless of the time of submission.
Further, the Court observed that the availability of virtual hearing facility ensures that physical courtroom access does not act as a pre-condition for hearing of a matter. "A litigant apprehending an imminent violation of liberty is not required to physically approach a courtroom; the remedy travels wherever the litigant may be", it said.
On the listing of urgent matters, the court highlighted the circular dated 29.11.2025, as per which urgent matters involving issues of life and liberty are to be accorded priority and listed within 2 working days, subject to clearing of objections (if any). It further referred to the mechanism stipulated in the circular for matters of "exceptional urgency", which cannot await listing in due course. In these matters, the bench observed, parties can move a mentioning proforma and appropriate orders can be obtained from the CJI.
The bench also underlined the provision for a designated vacation officer, who is appointed every month and is tasked with facilitating hearing of urgent matters on Saturdays, court holidays and after ordinary court working hours. Such a structured mechanism, the bench said, is sufficient to ensure that urgent matters can be brought before courts without avoidable delay. It was also noted that constitutional courts have never been "reticent" about sitting at odd and extended hours whenever a situation has so demanded.
"It is a matter of judicial record that this Court has, whenever the exigencies of justice have so required, convened hearings beyond its notified working hours, including late into the night, during the early hours of the morning, and on weekends, to consider matters involving imminent threat to life and liberty,"
Further, the office of the CJI and Chief Justices of High Courts remain open to receive representations from members of the public at any time.
"We may also hasten to add that the office of the Chief Justice of India, as also the offices of the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts, remain open to receive representations from litigants and members of the public at any time. It is a well-established and frequently availed practice for litigants, whether through counsel or in person, to address urgent representations to the Chief Justice highlighting matters requiring immediate judicial attention, and appropriate administrative and judicial action, including special listing, is routinely taken upon such representations being received."
The order was passed in a writ petition filed by Advocate Maheravish Rein, who appeared as petitioner-in-person. During the hearing of the matter on July 14, she recounted certain professional experiences where she was unable to secure urgent listing of petitions involving life and personal liberty outside regular court hours and highlighted the absence of a structured mechanism for urgent judicial intervention when petitions are filed after the court's working hours.
Rein submitted that if a petition is filed after 6 p.m. in an extremely urgent matter, litigants have no clear mechanism to ensure that it is placed before a judge without delay.
"The plea goes before the registry and then before the court. 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," she told the Bench.
Recounting one such incident, the counsel referred to an inter-faith couple who approached her at around 8 p.m. seeking police protection after their marriage. The police handed over the girl to the girl's family, and the man panicked. She claimed that despite her efforts till 3 a.m. to reach judges, no immediate judicial intervention could be secured. She said that the incident happened on December 25 last year.
Justice Bagchi however responded that the problem was not necessarily lack of access but the absence of a formal response mechanism. "You had access, but the mechanism may not have worked then. Now there is online filing. Even a letter written to the Court is access, and a phone call to the Registrar will also be answered. Yes, for lack of response time there has to be an SOP. But when the court will open its doors during unofficial hours, that cannot be," he observed.
The CJI, on the contrary, remarked that while such situations may arise, many urgent filings are also incomplete or poorly prepared.
"It is not a regular practice, but it is often seen how vague and incomplete paper books are filed. Yesterday I passed another administrative order asking the Advocates-on-Record to clearly state who the parties are, what is the relief sought, etc. There are 200-page petitions where only three pages are printed and the rest are photographs, Google Maps and other material," he remarked.
When Rein clarified that her concern was confined to cases involving life and liberty, the CJI initially asked her to suggest a workable mechanism. "Tell us the mechanism also," he said, to which Rein responded that she would assist the Court in formulating one.
The CJI also cautioned against expanding after-hours access indiscriminately, recalling that during the court vacations, five vacation benches had been constituted at the request of the Bar but many matters ultimately resulted only in adjournments.
Unconvinced, Justice Bagchi also observed that the petition appeared to equate official and unofficial court hours, which could not be accepted.
"Your plea tries to make official and unofficial hours of the court same. That cannot be accepted. Graded access to justice is not denial of justice. Access during court hours and during off-hours is different," he said.
Justice Bagchi further noted that with facilities such as online filing, it could no longer be said that the court's doors were completely closed after working hours, although there could be differing assessments of urgency.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also expressed reservations about judicial hearings at odd hours, pointing out the practical difficulty of assessing urgency.
"If tomorrow I file a plea at 11 p.m. regarding a matter listed before a Committee of Creditors at 9 a.m. the next day, how can a Bench hear it at midnight? It is difficult to bifurcate urgency. This can be handled on the administrative side," he submitted. He suggested that the issue be dealt with on the administrative side, instead of the Court taking it up judicially.
The Bench ultimately disposed of the petition reserving liberty as mentioned above.
Case Title: MAHERAVISH REIN v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 376/2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 728