Supreme Court flags lack of private washroom for women judges in Gujarat court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday highlighted a letter written by a woman judicial officer in State of Gujarat lamenting the unavailability of private washrooms in the court premises for women judges [Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Others].

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that the judicial officer in her letter has stated that due to unavailability of washroom, she was being forced to use her senior judge's washroom.

"We have received a letter from a very good judge from State of Gujarat. She says that she does not have her private washroom and has to ask her senior civil judge to use his washroom. This is not good Ms. Bhati (referring to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appearing for Union government)," Justice Pardiwala orally remarked.

The Court therefore proceeded to stress upon the fact of making available private washrooms for lady judicial officers in the court establishments.

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking toilet facilities for men, women and transgender persons in judicial establishments. The plea also raised issues on the aspect of separate toilet facilities being made available to litigants, lawyers and judicial officers.

The Court had in May last year asked all the High Courts across the country to file detailed affidavits highlighting the following details:

- Availability of toilets for men, women and transgenders;

- 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.

When the matter came up for hearing today, the Court was informed that all the High Courts have filed their affidavits concerning the issues raised.

Taking note of the same, the Court requested the petitioner as well as ASG Bhati to study the affidavits filed by High Courts and highlight the shortcomings that still persist, if any.

"In pursuance of direction issued by this court by order 8/5/23, all the High Courts have filed affidavits pointing out steps taken by them as regards to issues raised in the PIL. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that she has studied all affidavits and would want to point out certain shortcomings. We request both Petitioner and ASG to highlight what each of High Courts have said in their respective affidavits and whether any further direction is required to be done," the Court ordered.

The matter will be heard next on November 26.

Advocate Charu Ambwani appeared for the petitioner.

[Live Courtroom Exchange]