Sad That Supreme Court Had To Involve Itself In Petition About Toilets In Courts: Apex Court

The Supreme Court today, while hearing a petition seeking the Court's aide in ensuring toilet facilities at Courts across the country, commented that it was sad that it has had to involve itself in the issue.

A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a Public Interest Litigation petition that seeks directions to all states and Union Territories to ensure toilet facilities at all Courts and Tribunals, citing the implied right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Petition argues that sanitation is inextricably linked to human dignity and that clean public toilets contribute to the well being of the society.

During the process of hearing, Justice Pardiwala lamented, "It is sad that the Supreme Court involve itself into all this. It is so sad." The key problem, he said "is maintenance. You may invest a 100 crores in any project, but when it comes to maintenance, that's it", clasping his hands.

Senior Advocate Bhaskar Dev Konwar, appearing virtually, told the Bench, "The statistics have come but the ground reality has not changed." In Guwahati and Calcutta High Courts, he said, "everything is the same". "Even in Delhi, the building in Saket looks very nice from the outside, (but) the toilets were pathetic... I don't know why the judiciary is shying away from depicting the correct picture."

Bhaskar Konwar, who appeared alongside Advocate Charu Ambwani, said the situation at Supreme Court's toilets only improved after the contract for their maintenance was given to a private organisation. He cited the example of one of Assam's districts where "a Sessions Judge had to shift his courtroom to a subordinate Judge's because of the smell emanating from the toilet next to his courtroom." District Courts, he claimed, say that the state government does not give them enough funds for maintenance and that the state's affidavit does not state how much funds they allocate. He said the situation is similarly bad in Family Courts of Assam, which is frequented by children.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said it might be difficult to monitor the day-to-day cleanliness of toilets at Courts. To this, Justice Pardiwala replied, "But what has been pointed out by Mr. Konwar is nothing but bitter truth. Bitter truth." 

On May 8, 2023, the Court had asked all the High Courts to file tabular statements on affidavit indicating the availability of toilets for men, women and transgenders, the steps taken for maintenance of toilets, whether separate toilet facilities are made available to litigants, lawyers and judicial officers and whether adequate facilities for sanitary napkins dispensers are made available in women’s toilets. 

On November 12, the Court had asked the ASG to "give a fair idea" to those affidavits and inform the Court whether any further directions are required. The ASG today said the data on whether Judges had individual toilets attached to their chambers is not present. "That is very essential," Justice Pardiwala remarked. The Court asked the ASG to give a gist of the affidavits filed by the High Courts and "give us a short note on which department we now need to focus and issue directions."

The ASG added, "The Petitioner's note is quite exhaustive. It even talks about gender-neutral toilets, and for transgenders, etc. But I think that's a little far fetched. We have to go one step at a time."

The petition seeks, among other things, a Writ in the nature of mandamus to all the states and Union Territories to ensure that the basic toilet facilities with sufficient water and electricity are made available in all Courts and Tribunals in the country for men, women and handicapped and transgender persons. For women's toilets, it seeks a system for disposal of sanitary napkins and says that women's toilets should be constructed at a distance from men's toilets.

Dictating the Order, the Bench said, "Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. We have received suggestions from the Petitioner in writing. If the other side wants to place something on record, they shall do it within a period of two weeks from today."

Cause Title: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 538/2023 PIL-W]