New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed deep concern over the failure of 20 high courts to submit compliance reports following its judgment mandating adequate toilet facilities in all courts and tribunals across the country. The court gave these high courts a final deadline of eight weeks to file their reports.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan sternly warned that failure to meet this deadline would result in consequences. “This is the last opportunity,” the bench stated, adding that if the reports are not filed, the Registrar Generals of the defaulting high courts will be required to appear in person.
In its landmark ruling on January 15, the apex court had declared access to proper sanitation a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It directed all high courts, along with state governments and Union Territories, to ensure the availability of separate and functional toilet facilities for men, women, persons with disabilities, and transgender individuals in every court and tribunal.
The court had also instructed that a status report be submitted within four months detailing the measures taken. However, during Wednesday’s hearing, the bench noted that only five high courts—Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi, and Patna—had filed affidavits outlining their compliance.
Out of the 25 high courts in India, 20 have yet to file their reports.
“Many high courts are still to file compliance affidavits. We grant them a final eight-week period to do so. Failing that, their Registrar Generals will be required to appear before this court in person,” the bench ordered.
The January judgment had mandated the formation of a committee in each high court, chaired by a judge nominated by the Chief Justice. Other members were to include the Registrar General or Registrar of the high court, the state’s Chief Secretary, PWD Secretary, Finance Secretary, a Bar Association representative, and any other officials deemed necessary.
The committee’s responsibilities include preparing a detailed plan to construct and maintain adequate toilet facilities, estimating average daily footfall in court complexes, and ensuring facilities are clearly marked and accessible to judges, lawyers, litigants, and court staff.
The Supreme Court also directed state governments and UTs to allocate sufficient funds for the construction, upkeep, and cleanliness of these toilet facilities, with progress to be periodically reviewed in coordination with the respective committees.
The judgment was delivered in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Rajeeb Kalita.
