The Supreme Court has taken a strict stance on the lack of basic facilities including toilets for women lawyers in the district and tehsil courts of the country. Calling it a violation of human rights, the bench headed by the Chief Justice has asked the states to take action in this regard within 6 weeks.
The court described it as very important to provide a safe and respectful environment to women lawyers at the workplace. Chief Justice Surya Kant said, “Our daughters are working in dilapidated buildings and in deplorable conditions. Changing this situation is our top priority. Lack of basic facilities for women affects their self-esteem and ability to work.”
Supreme Court ordered on the petition
In the petition on which the Supreme Court has given this order, the question of lack of basic facilities for women lawyers in courts across the country and the financial challenges of young lawyers has been raised. The petitioners have demanded ‘Ladies Bar Room’ in every court. Apart from this, a demand has also been made in the petition to create ‘Young Lawyers Professional Assistance Fund’ to provide financial assistance to junior lawyers. The court had issued notice on June 19 on this petition of 6 women lawyers including Sarika Tyagi, Seema Vashishtha. After the notice, the case came up for hearing for the first time on Friday, July 17. Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the central government, said that he will talk to the Advocate General of the states on the demands made in the petition.
What did the Supreme Court say about the Advocate General?
The Supreme Court, while directing the matter to be posted for hearing after 6 weeks, asked the Advocate Generals of all the states to prepare a report on the ground situation of sanitation facilities in their respective courts and submit it to the state government within 2 weeks. On the basis of this report, the Public Works Department should start the construction work of toilets within 4 weeks. The court said that it will not accept any excuse of lack of funds or budget in this case. If state governments want, they can impose additional tax on liquor or cigarettes to raise funds. The Supreme Court will give legal recognition to such a step.