For justice around the clock | Explained
Ms. Rein’s has filed the case in the backdrop of reports of late-night arrests, illegal detentions, early morning demolitions of homes, deportations, custodial abuse and other executive excesses were on the rise.A Constitution Bench in the case of 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 apex 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 CourtIs 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 like the U.K, Singapore, Sweden and the U.S. have 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 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.
Discussion (0)