When the Court never sleeps

Recent interventions by the Supreme Court of India signal a decisive shift in the nation’s constitutional journey. Chief Justice Surya Kant has reportedly formalised the evolution of the judiciary into an essential public utility—a “midnight sentinel” alert to fundamental liberties at all hours. By likening constitutional courts to hospital emergency rooms, the Court’s leadership has effectively institutionalised the concept of 24x7 justice. 

This transition places the protection of life and dignity at the centre of judicial functioning, recasting the bench from a passive arbiter into an active architect of systemic reform, accessible whenever urgent intervention is required.

A key trigger for this shift is the Court’s consideration of issues arising from the life sentence of former legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar. By staying a Delhi High Court order suspending his sentence, the Supreme Court addressed the tension between technical statutory interpretation and the realities of political power. 

At issue is whether an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly occupies a “position of trust or authority” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. While initial reasoning leaned towards a narrow reading limited to formally defined “public servants”, the SC identified this as a substantial question of law requiring a holistic, not mechanical, application.

The bench warned against the danger of “procedural immunity” if powerful lawmakers were held to different standards of accountability than junior officials. In many parts of India, a legislator’s influence extends deeply into administrative and social structures. By staying Sengar’s release, the Court signalled its preference for a context-aware approach that acknowledges the social and historical complexities of the Unnao case, including intimidation and irreversible personal loss.

This proactive stance extends into the realm of transformative justice. The Court has indicated its intention to constitute a nine-judge bench to settle conflicts between religious freedom and women’s rights, covering issues ranging from temple entry to practices such as female genital mutilation. 

In a similar vein, the judgment in State of UP vs Ajmal Beg overturned a 24-year-old acquittal in a dowry death case, emphasising that social evils often survive by mutating into socially acceptable forms, such as “voluntary gifts.” The Court found such practices incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality.

To address these issues at their roots, the judiciary has urged the introduction of gender equality modules in school curricula and the revival of Dowry Prohibition Officers, strengthening early administrative intervention before disputes escalate. 

However, as the CJI noted, such social transformations require an agile administrative engine. To ensure fair access to court time—especially for poorer litigants—the judiciary has introduced a framework of “managerial judging” to end the era of high-stake cases where arguments could span weeks.

Under new standard operating procedures, lawyers must submit advance schedules of their oral argument through an online portal, alongside concise written submissions limited to five pages. By managing the daily docket as a high-value resource, the Court will ensure that renowned counsel can no longer monopolise the bench’s time. This digital triage enables priority listing of special categories, ensuring that matters involving personal liberty or imminent arrest receive immediate attention, treating legal emergencies with the urgency of medical trauma during the “golden hour”.

The reforms also deepen transparency. Nationwide live-streaming of constitutional benches hearings allows citizens to observe judicial reasoning in real time, countering traditional opacity of legal manoeuvres and reinforcing public trust in the “midnight sentinel”. Data analytics now help identify systemic bottlenecks across high courts, encouraging cross-jurisdictional efficiency. 

These administrative refinements are not merely logistical updates; they represent a fundamental reimagining of the judiciary as a service-oriented entity. As the legal landscape adapts to these rigorous standards, the focus remains on distilling complex litigation into timely resolutions, thereby preventing the erosion of rights through protracted delays.

By institutionalising round-the-clock access, the Supreme Court provides a safety net that functions as a constant guardian against state overreach or the exploitation of legal gaps. As the “midnight sentinel”, the Supreme Court aims to ensure that the legal system remains an effective instrument for all citizens, irrespective of status.

(The author is an independent writer)