NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India has taken up a landmark petition demanding a formal framework for round-the-clock judicial benches, arguing that the protection of fundamental rights must not be restricted by traditional court schedules in a system where executive power operates without temporal limits. The case, filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, has ignited a national debate over judicial accessibility, institutional capacity, and the constitutional duty to safeguard personal liberty at all hours.
The court has issued notices to the central government and the Supreme Court registry, requiring their responses within four weeks. The petition contends that the absence of a mechanism for urgent judicial intervention outside standard working hours creates a critical gap in the enforcement of constitutional rights, particularly in cases involving arbitrary detentions, police excesses, or other emergencies where delays could result in irreversible harm.
What Happened
On August 12, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to examine Upadhyay’s writ petition, which seeks the establishment of a structured system for 24/7 benches to handle urgent matters. The petition argues that while law enforcement agencies, emergency services, and executive authorities operate continuously, the judiciary’s limited working hours—typically 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays—leave citizens without recourse during nights, weekends, and holidays.
The plea highlights several scenarios where immediate judicial intervention is critical, including:
– Habeas corpus petitions challenging unlawful detentions,
– Bail applications in cases of arbitrary arrests,
– Stay orders to prevent imminent violations of rights, and
– Emergency injunctions in cases of custodial violence or administrative overreach.
Upadhyay’s petition cites Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, arguing that this right cannot be contingent on court timings. The petition also references past instances where the Supreme Court has convened emergency hearings outside regular hours, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2019 abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, and high-profile cases involving national security.
Why It Matters
The case raises profound questions about the judiciary’s role in a modern democracy where state power is increasingly exercised around the clock. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the petition, it could set a precedent for structural reforms across India’s judicial system, compelling high courts and lower courts to adopt similar measures. This would mark a significant shift in how justice is administered, particularly in matters involving personal liberty and human rights.
The petition also arrives at a time when public trust in the judiciary’s responsiveness has been tested by high-profile delays and backlogs. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, as of 2026, over 50 million cases are pending across Indian courts, with the Supreme Court alone handling more than 80,000 pending matters. While the proposal for 24/7 benches does not directly address the backlog, it underscores the need for systemic reforms to ensure that urgent cases are not lost in the queue.
Background and Context
The idea of round-the-clock judicial benches is not entirely new. In 2018, the then-Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, had informally suggested the possibility of night courts for urgent matters, though no formal framework was established. Similarly, in 2020, the Supreme Court conducted virtual hearings during the COVID-19 lockdown, demonstrating that remote judicial proceedings could function outside traditional hours.
However, the current petition goes further by demanding a permanent, institutionalized system rather than ad-hoc emergency measures. It also aligns with global trends where courts in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have established protocols for after-hours judicial intervention in cases involving imminent harm.
In India, the debate over judicial accessibility has gained traction amid rising concerns about police excesses, custodial deaths, and arbitrary detentions. According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India recorded over 1,800 custodial deaths between 2020 and 2025, many of which involved allegations of torture or unlawful detention. The petition argues that a 24/7 judicial mechanism could act as a deterrent against such abuses by ensuring that victims or their families have immediate access to legal remedies.
Competing Claims and Uncertainty
While the petition has garnered support from civil rights activists and legal scholars, it has also faced skepticism from within the judiciary and the legal community. Critics raise several concerns:
1. Operational Challenges: Maintaining 24/7 benches would require significant logistical support, including additional judges, court staff, and security personnel. The Supreme Court currently operates with 34 judges, a number that has remained unchanged since 2019 despite a growing caseload. Expanding judicial hours without increasing manpower could exacerbate existing inefficiencies.
2. Judicial Overreach: Some legal experts argue that a 24/7 judicial system could lead to an overreach of judicial power, with courts being called upon to intervene in matters that could be resolved through administrative or executive channels. There are concerns that such a system might encourage frivolous petitions, further burdening an already strained judiciary.
3. Technological and Infrastructure Limitations: While virtual hearings have become more common, not all courts in India are equipped with the necessary digital infrastructure to support round-the-clock operations. The petition acknowledges this challenge but argues that technological barriers are surmountable with adequate investment.
4. Financial Implications: The central government, which would bear the primary financial burden of implementing such a system, has not yet responded to the petition. Previous proposals for judicial reforms, such as the establishment of additional courts, have stalled due to funding constraints.
5. Judicial Discretion vs. Institutional Framework: The Supreme Court has historically relied on the discretion of individual judges to convene emergency hearings. The petition challenges this ad-hoc approach, arguing that a formal framework would ensure consistency and accountability. However, some judges may resist a system that limits their autonomy in deciding when to hear urgent matters.
What to Watch Next
The Supreme Court’s decision on this petition will hinge on several key factors:
1. Government’s Response: The central government’s stance will be critical. If it opposes the petition on financial or logistical grounds, the court may seek a phased implementation or a pilot project in select jurisdictions. Conversely, if the government supports the proposal, it could accelerate the establishment of 24/7 benches.
2. Judicial Precedents: The court may look to past instances where emergency hearings were conducted, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic or the 2019 Kashmir lockdown, to assess the feasibility of a permanent framework. It may also consider global best practices from jurisdictions with after-hours judicial systems.
3. Public and Legal Reactions: The petition has already sparked discussions among legal scholars, civil society groups, and the media. Public opinion, as reflected in editorials and social media debates, could influence the court’s approach. If there is widespread support for the proposal, the court may be more inclined to rule in favor of the petition.
4. Pilot Projects: Before implementing a nationwide system, the Supreme Court may direct high courts in major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, or Bangalore to experiment with 24/7 benches for a limited period. The outcomes of such pilot projects could shape the final framework.
5. Technological Readiness: The court may also examine the readiness of India’s digital infrastructure to support round-the-clock virtual hearings. If technological limitations are identified, the court could mandate investments in digital courts as a prerequisite for implementing the system.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to examine the petition for 24/7 benches marks a pivotal moment in India’s judicial history. At its core, the case grapples with a fundamental question: Can a democracy that operates around the clock afford to have its highest court bound by traditional working hours?
While the proposal presents significant logistical and financial challenges, it also offers an opportunity to redefine judicial accessibility in the digital age. If successful, the petition could ensure that no citizen is left without recourse when their fundamental rights are violated, regardless of the hour. However, the path forward will require careful balancing of institutional capacity, technological readiness, and constitutional principles.
For now, all eyes are on the central government and the Supreme Court registry, whose responses in the coming weeks will shape the trajectory of this landmark case. Whatever the outcome, the debate has already underscored the urgent need for judicial reforms that align with the realities of a 24/7 world.
Story synopsis gathered from: [The Hindu](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/for-justice-around-the-clock-explained/article71224194.ece) — source.
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source.
