Supreme Court mulls 24X7 emergency protocol to protect life, liberty

Published 14 July 2026 · india

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) agreed to consider framing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to allow citizens to knock on the doors

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) agreed to consider framing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to allow citizens to knock on the doors of the courts any time, day or night, in cases affecting life and liberty, including illegal detentions, imminent demolition of homes, deportations, custodial violence or other state actions. Also Read | Why judicial holidays are necessary A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing a petition filed by an apex court advocate, Maheravish Rein, who said the courts cannot afford to close especially in the background of credible reports of late-night arrests, early morning demolition drives and deportation or executive actions undertaken during weekends or holidays. “The absence of a structured and institutionalised mechanism ensuring continuous judicial accessibility may result in irreversible consequences before affected persons are able to approach constitutional courts… The protection of liberty cannot remain dependent upon the temporal boundaries of court schedules.

In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the Constitution cannot fall silent at night, nor can the protection of liberty await the morning bell of the courts,” Ms. Rein submitted. Access to justice cannot exist merely in theory. Constitutional remedies must be practically accessible at all times. “The present institutional framework of 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,” Ms. Rein submitted. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a part of the Bench, said there was a difference in approach in accessing justice during office hours and after office hours.

The judge said a “graded approach” to access to justice after court hours cannot be interpreted as a denial of justice. The judge pointed out that courts never “close-up” when there was digital access to justice through e-filing. “A letter, an email or a phone call would be enough to activate the justice system,” Justice Bagchi said. Rein agreed with Justice Bagchi that technological advancements, including digital filing, electronic court records and virtual hearing infrastructure had significantly enhanced the capacity of courts to provide remote access to justice. “However, these technological capabilities have not yet been integrated into a uniform institutional framework enabling emergency judicial access for urgent constitutional matters outside regular court hours,” she submitted. The Bench noted that an SOP could indeed be put in place to reduce the “response time” to urgent requests for justice in cases of life and liberty.