Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Mechanism For Urgent Hearings Beyond Regular Hours, Says E-Filing Allows Anytime Access

What is this case about?

The case involves a petition seeking a mechanism for urgent hearings beyond regular court hours, arguing that access to constitutional courts should not be limited by time constraints. The core issue is whether the existing judicial framework adequately ensures timely access to justice for matters involving life and liberty.

Who it concerns

Petitioner: MAHERAVISH REIN (a practicing Advocate), Respondents: UNION OF INDIA & ORS., Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI, HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. MOHANA

What the Court ordered

• The Court rejected the plea for a new mechanism for urgent hearings beyond regular hours.
• The Court stated that e-filing allows filing at any time, and virtual hearings are available.
• The Court noted that urgent matters are prioritized and can be listed within two working days.
• The Court mentioned a dedicated mechanism for exceptional urgency requiring a Mentioning Proforma and Letter of Urgency.
• The Court stated that Constitutional Courts have historically heard matters beyond regular hours when necessary.
• The Court directed that representations regarding specific grievances can be made to the Registrar General or Chief Justice.
• The Writ Petition and pending Interlocutory Application are disposed of.

Points worth noting

• The Court emphasized that e-filing and virtual hearings provide 24/7 access to the judicial system.
• The Court referenced Circulars F. No. 20/Judl./2025 and F. No. 21/Judl./2025 regarding urgent matter listing.
• The Court noted the existence of a designated Vacation Officer for urgent matters on weekends and holidays.