Toilets for women in courts: A ‘stale’ issue presenting an opportunity for a new design for court complexes

A major hot-button issue that has been brought to the fore multiple times over the last couple of months is the lack of toilets for women in court complexes.

It began with the protest by the Nilgiris’ Women Lawyers Association against the glaring lack of washroom facilities for women in the sprawling, newly-built Nilgiris District Court complex (despite the recent controversy surrounding the accuracy of these claims). The uproar was such that the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue. 

Realising that they were not much better off than their counterparts in the neighboring state, women lawyers in Karnataka are now seeking support on a petition addressed to the Chief Justice. They are seeking the bare minimum - opening up existing toilets for use, regular maintenance to prevent the stench in court corridors, and new mugs and soaps.

The latest on this issue is now from the Bombay High Court where, following a petition highlighting the continued lack of female-centric amenities in courts - including toilets, bar rooms, lockers, childcare and drinking water facilities - the High Court has constituted a committee.

State of washroom facilities in district courts

The sordid tale of lack of toilets in courts is unfortunately neither new nor limited to the states highlighted above. Back in 2019, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy conducted a survey of 665 district court complexes across India on parameters laid down in the National Court Management Systems’ (NCMS) Baseline Report, 2012, regarding infrastructural requirements in the district judiciary. It was found that nearly 100 district court complexes lacked any toilet facilities for women, and even in the 585 (88%) court complexes that had washrooms, 60% were not fully functional.

Despite repeated attention drawn towards the issue over the last few years, little has changed in terms of the attitude or the facilities on ground throughout the country. In fact, one of the first issues Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud spoke about last year upon assuming office, related to the fact that women lawyers are required to spend the entire day without access to washroom facilities, and an infrastructure overhaul in the district judiciary would be required. As the administrative head of the Supreme Court, the CJI himself has been progressive in this regard by approving the construction of gender-neutral washrooms in the Supreme Court. This, however, will remain a tokenistic gesture at best, since the first point of contact for lakhs of lawyers and litigants is the district judiciary and not the Supreme Court. 

Lack of user-centricity in court design

The issue of lack of washroom facilities is, however, only a symptom of a deep-rooted problem in the judiciary - the lack of user-centricity. Our courts, as with most other public places, continue to be designed for able-bodied male users, and are not responsive to the needs of the diverse other groups who interact with these spaces.

This glaring gap in terms of thinking and building for multiple different categories of users manifests in various ways. The debilitating effect is primarily on a large category of users - the litigants. Court complexes are notoriously hard to navigate for all litigants who are unfamiliar with the system; the absence of accessible wayfinding and information signage at most courts, including signage in local languages or adequate visual representation, makes this even harder.

Accessibility also continues to remain a major problem in our courts. Even in instances where attempts have been made to bridge this gap, these measures remain half-hearted. For example, the external ramps lack accompanying overhead cover and tactile pavers are often rendered inaccessible by the placement of furniture or other barriers that hinder movement.

Even for internal stakeholders such as judges and staff, court complexes continue to be unwelcoming workspaces. Vidhi’s audits across multiple jurisdictions have revealed that the administrative offices, chambers and courtrooms are often not well-lit and ventilated, and are placed next to poorly-maintained toilets or drains, which compounds health concerns for staff who utilise these spaces on a daily basis.

This lack of user-centricity in court planning has pervasive repercussions. Users who have additional needs that are not accommodated in court design end up being systematically excluded from these spaces. This is most starkly illustrated by the lack of washroom facilities for women. As per the statistics released by the Department of Legal Affairs, female advocates are a stark minority at the Bar, forming only 15.31% of the total number of registered advocates. By restrictive infrastructural amenities, this stark gender disparity will likely continue to be perpetuated.

Need for a principle-based approach

Presently, court infrastructure in India is guided solely by the 2012 NCMS Report, which acknowledges the need for access to justice for all, particularly the underprivileged, persons with disabilities and women. However, an inclusive design proposed in the Report remains only on paper. Additionally, the Report has not been updated in more than a decade. It does not account for significant recent developments in inclusive design, such as the 2021 Harmonised Guidelines for Universal Accessibility in India or the 2022 Guidelines for Recording of Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses by setting up sensitively-designed Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres, issued by the Supreme Court in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

A new, more holistic approach to court design is the need of the hour. Such an approach would no longer merely pay lip-service to inclusivity, but incorporate specific principles to achieve this goal. These principles include ensuring accessibility, efficiency, adaptability, safety and comfort of all users. By working towards specifically meeting accessibility requirements and creating user-friendly spaces, ensuring efficient spatial organisation and adjacency of workflows, and ensuring that design is adaptable to any future needs, court complexes can become spaces that truly encourage the participation of all and further instill trust in the judicial process.

This would also require diverse users to be involved in the building and design process. For example, listening to women’s demands would help court design to incorporate not just facilities such as clean and well-maintained washrooms, but also access to menstrual products and sanitary waste disposal facilities. A principle-based approach would also then expand the scope of design to include aspects such as ergonomic furniture, crèches and a mother’s feeding room for working mothers, and ensuring well-lit common spaces that are safe and welcoming for women and, indeed, all users.

With new court complexes sought to be built across multiple districts in the next months, approaches to court design must change to ensure that the judiciary practises what it preaches, and makes courts into spaces where all users can meaningfully participate in the judicial process.

Deepika Kinhal is the Team Lead at Justice, Access, and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

Priyamvadha Shivaji is a Research Fellow with the JALDI Initiative. 

Brinda Sastry is an Independent Urban Design and Planning Practitioner.