'Sad That Supreme Court Has To Get Involved': SC Reserves Judgment On PIL Seeking Sanitised Toilets In Courts

The Supreme Court today (November 26) reserved the judgment in a Public Interest Litigation seeking sanitised toilets in Courts and Tribunals across the country after the petitioner provided suggestions on the issue.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reserved the judgment not before adding that the Court needs to do something about this issue. When it was suggested that a permanent committee may be established to monitor the issue, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked: "It is so sad that the Supreme Court has to involve itself into all this. It is so sad. What has been pointed out by Mr. Konwar is truth and hard reality. That is the problem in the country-maintenance. Maintenance is the key problem. You may invest 100 crores in any project but when it comes to maintenance, then its the problem."

This observation came after Senior Advocate B.D. Konwar (appearing for petitioners) told the Court: "Statistics have come but the ground reality has not changed. Say for example, Gauhati High Court till yesterday have worn out. They have constructed a 100 crore building and its the same. Last week, I was in Kolkata and Calcutta [High Court] its the same. Delhi, if you look at the building in Saket, it looks very nice from the outside. I had one occasion to go to fifth floor in Saket, Mylords, the toilets are pathetic! Karkardoma, I have been there. It has improved. In the capital city itself it is very bad.

So far as Supreme Court is concerned, it has improved after giving it to those private organisations...I dont know why the judiciary is shying away from depicting the correct picture. In one of the districts in Assam,..when I went, the sessions judge has to shift his Courtroom to subordinate judge because of smell emanating from toilets near his Courtroom. In another district, when I entered in the toilet, it is so pathetic."

He also added that as far as Assam is concerned, it has been stated that the District Courts are not getting funds from the State Government for yearly maintenance. 

On this, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati pointed out that this relates to day-to-day maintenance of the toilets, Justice Pardiwala remarked: "What has been pointed out by Mr. Konwar is nothing but bitter truth."

Konwar added that the situation is much worse even in family courts in Guwahati, where children go. Counsel representing the State of West Bengal responded that, as per his instruction, the toilets are clean in general. But this incident, as Konwar pointed out, could have happened.

On last occasion, the Court directed counsel for the petitioner, AoR Charu Ambwani, and Bhati to file a note on the shortcomings in terms of the affidavit filed by the High Courts. It also asked Bhati to highlight what each High Court have said in their affidavit in regard to the order and what further directions are required to be passed. 

Particularly, the Court took note of the fact that women judicial officers do not have access to private washrooms and have to use the washrooms allotted to judges. On this, Bhati today pointed out that the data on individual washrooms within the chambers in the High Courts is not there. She clarified that some affidavits have that data, some do not. 

On May 8, 2023, the Court passed an order seeking a reply from the High Courts on the following: 

(a) Availability of toilets for men, women and transgenders;

(b) Steps taken for maintenance of toilets;

(c) Whether separate toilet facilities are made available to litigants, lawyers and judicial officers; and

(d) Whether adequate facilities for sanitary napkins dispensers are made available in women's toilets.

It was stated that the affidavits shall cover the establishments of the High Court and the entire district judiciary in the respective States/UTs.

Case Details: RAJEEB KALITA v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.W.P.(C) No. 538/2023