SUPREME COURT GIVES FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO HIGH COURTS TO SUBMIT COMPLIANCE REPORTS ON TOILET FACILITIES FOR WOMEN, DISABLED, AND TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS:

On July 16, the Supreme Court granted a final opportunity to High Courts across the country to file compliance reports on its January 15, 2024, judgment, which issued comprehensive directions for the construction and maintenance of toilet facilities in court premises and tribunals. These facilities are meant to specifically cater to women, persons with disabilities (PwD), and transgender individuals. The Court had previously expressed deep concern about the lack of such basic amenities, especially for female judicial officers who often do not have access to private washrooms.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan made the latest pronouncement in a writ petition filed by Rajeeb Kalita in 2023. The case was taken up to assess the status of compliance with the Court’s earlier directions. While several High Courts, including those of Chhattisgarh, Calcutta, Sikkim, Patna, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Punjab and Haryana, Kerala, Delhi, and Gujarat,  have already submitted compliance reports, many others are yet to do so. The Court has now provided an extension of eight weeks for the remaining High Courts to comply. In case of continued default, the Court warned that it would summon the Registrar Generals of the non-compliant High Courts to appear in person and provide an explanation.

The directions issued in the January judgment, authored by Justice Mahadevan, are expansive in scope. The Court mandated that High Courts and State/UT governments ensure the construction and availability of separate toilets for men, women, transgender persons, and PwDs across all court premises and tribunals. High Courts were further instructed to oversee and ensure the accessibility and identification of these facilities for judges, litigants, court staff, and advocates.

To facilitate this, each High Court is required to constitute a committee chaired by a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice. The committee should include the Registrar General, Chief Secretary, PWD and Finance Secretaries of the State, a representative from the Bar Association, and other relevant officials. This committee is tasked with preparing a detailed plan and overseeing its implementation. Key responsibilities include collecting data on daily footfall in court premises to determine the number of washrooms required, conducting surveys to identify infrastructural gaps, and evaluating whether existing washrooms can be retrofitted or upgraded.

The Court emphasized that temporary solutions such as mobile toilets and eco-friendly bio-toilets should be deployed during construction phases. Additionally, the facilities must be equipped with basic amenities like water, electricity, soap, sanitary napkins, and operational plumbing. Special attention must be paid to PwD-accessible washrooms, including features like ramps and spacious interiors.

The judgment also called for sensitive integration of modern amenities in heritage court buildings, maintenance through professional cleaning services, regular inspections, and the establishment of complaint and redressal mechanisms. A designated nodal officer should be appointed at each court complex to monitor maintenance and address grievances. Furthermore, a transparent, dedicated fund should be created for the construction and upkeep of toilet facilities.

Child-safe washrooms are to be installed in family courts, with trained personnel available to assist children. For nursing mothers, dedicated spaces with feeding stations and diaper-changing platforms—ideally linked to women's washrooms—should be provided, modeled after facilities in airports.

To maintain standards, High Courts were also directed to implement a grading and certification system to assess hygiene levels in subordinate courts, which could serve as motivation for court staff and officials. Finally, the judgment required periodic review of fund allocation for these initiatives, in consultation with the High Court-constituted committees. The Court also directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, as well as to the Registrar Generals of the High Courts, for strict compliance. Justice Pardiwala warned that failure to implement these directives could result in contempt proceedings.