SC reserves judgment on PILs seeking sanitized toilets in courts

Today (November 26), the Supreme Court reserved judgment in a public interest litigation relating to disinfected toilets in courts and tribunals across the country after a suggestion was made by the petitioner in this regard.

Bench with Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan he reserved judgment only after adding that the Court must do something about this issue. When it was suggested that a standing committee be set up to monitor the issue, Justice Pardiwala orally observed: “It’s so sad that the Supreme Court has to get involved in all this. It’s so sad. What Mr. Konwar pointed out was the truth and hard reality. This is the problem of maintaining the state. Maintenance is the key issue. You can invest 100 crore in any project, but when it comes to maintenance, it is a problem.

This observation came later Senior Advocate BD Konwar (appearing for the petitioners) told the Court: “The statistics came in, but the basic reality did not change. Let’s say for example that the Gauhati High Court was worn out by yesterday. They built a building worth 100 crore and it is the same. Last week I was in Calcutta and Calcutta (High Court), same thing. Delhi, if you look at the building in Saket, it looks very nice from the outside. I once had the opportunity to go to the fifth floor in Saket, Mylords, the toilets are pathetic! Karkardomo, I was there. It has improved. The situation in the capital itself is very bad.

As for the Supreme Court, it has improved since it was handed over to these private organizations… I don’t know why the judiciary is shying away from presenting the correct picture. When I went there, in one district of Assam, a sessions judge had to shift his courtroom to a subordinate judge because of the smell emanating from the toilets near his courtroom. In another neighborhood, when I went into the toilet, it was pathetic.”

He also added that as far as Assam is concerned, it was found that district courts do not receive funds from the state government for annual maintenance.

on this, Additional Attorney General Aishwarya Bhati pointed out that it had to do with the daily maintenance of toilets, Justice Pardiwala observed: “What Mr. Konwar pointed out is just the bitter truth.”

Konwar added that even in family courts in Guwahati, where children are sent, the situation is much worse. The lawyer representing the state of West Bengal replied that the toilets were generally clean as per his instructions. But the incident that Konwar pointed out could have happened.

The last time the Tribunal directed the applicant’s representative, AoR Charu Ambwani and Bhati file a note regarding the deficiencies in the affidavit filed by the High Court. She also asked Bhati to highlight what each High Court had stated in their submissions in relation to the order and what further directions should be issued.

In particular, the Court noted that female court officials did not have access to private toilets and had to use toilets allocated to judges. On this issue, Bhati today pointed out that there is no data regarding individual toilets in the Supreme Court chambers. She explained that some affidavits include this information and others do not.

On 8 May 2023, the Court issued an order asking the High Courts to respond on the following matter:

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

(b) steps taken to maintain toilets;

(c) Whether separate toilets are provided to litigants, lawyers and court officials; AND

d) Whether adequate sanitary napkin dispensers are provided in women’s toilets.

It said that the affidavits would apply to the High Court authorities and the entire district judiciary in the respective states/UTs.

Details of the case: RAJEEB KALITA v. UNION OF INDIA I ORS.WP(C) No. 538/2023