New Delhi– In a significant move to enforce judicial infrastructure reforms, the Supreme Court of India has extended a final opportunity to high courts across the country to submit compliance reports on providing adequate toilet facilities in courts and tribunals. This directive underscores the judiciary’s commitment to recognizing access to sanitation as an integral part of fundamental rights, aiming to ensure dignity and accessibility for all stakeholders in the legal system.
This development follows the apex court’s landmark January verdict, which highlighted the critical gaps in sanitation infrastructure within the judicial premises. As India’s highest judicial authority pushes for nationwide compliance, legal experts view this as a reinforcement of constitutional protections under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Court’s Latest Directive and Warning
During the recent hearing, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed dissatisfaction with the slow pace of compliance from several high courts. The judges granted an eight-week extension as a “final opportunity” for submissions, emphasizing accountability at the highest levels.
“Many high courts are yet to file their affidavits/compliance report…we grant them the last opportunity to file the compliance report within eight weeks. We make it clear that if they fail to file the status reports, then the registrar generals will remain present personally here,” the bench ordered, according to news agency PTI.
This stern warning implies potential contempt proceedings or further judicial scrutiny if deadlines are missed. Registrar Generals, as administrative heads of high courts, could face personal summons, highlighting the Supreme Court’s resolve to enforce its orders without further delays.
Current Compliance Status Among High Courts
The bench noted a concerning lack of response from most high courts. Out of India’s 25 high courts, only five have submitted affidavits detailing their actions to address the sanitation directive. These include the High Courts of Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi, and Patna. Their reports outline steps such as infrastructure audits, renovations, and signage improvements to make facilities more user-friendly.
This disparity raises questions about administrative efficiency in the judiciary. Legal analysts suggest that non-compliant high courts may be grappling with budgetary constraints or logistical challenges, but the Supreme Court’s order leaves no room for excuses. The emphasis on affidavits ensures transparency, requiring detailed accounts of audits, timelines for upgrades, and measures for ongoing maintenance.
