Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Friday, February 21, 2025

Justice Beyond the Courtroom: The Verdict in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and the Right to Dignity

Posted in: Supreme Court
Tue, Feb 11, 25, 18:55, 1 Week ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 25594
The Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India mandates separate toilet facilities in courts, highlighting the need for dignity, gender equality, and better infrastructure in India's judicial system.

Justice Beyond the Courtroom: The Verdict in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. and the Right to Dignity

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors., directing the construction of separate toilet facilities in all courts and tribunals across the country. At first glance, the ruling might seem like a simple administrative order, but its significance runs much deeper—it is a decision that underscores the essential human right to dignity.

The State of Court Infrastructure: A Long-Standing Issue
For decades, the lack of proper sanitation facilities in Indian courts has been a persistent yet overlooked problem. Lawyers, litigants, and court staff—particularly women—have had to navigate an environment that is often unsanitary and inadequate. In many lower courts, basic amenities like clean washrooms are either missing or in deplorable condition, making court visits an ordeal, especially for female advocates and petitioners.

Justice, after all, is not just about legal principles and verdicts. It is also about ensuring that those seeking and delivering justice are treated with respect. The Court’s ruling is, therefore, not just about constructing toilets—it is about recognizing the inherent dignity of all individuals who step inside a courtroom.

The Gendered Reality of Court Facilities
The lack of separate toilets disproportionately affects women in the legal profession. Female lawyers, litigants, and court staff often struggle with unhygienic or non-existent restrooms, making it difficult for them to function effectively in a profession that is already male-dominated. This systemic neglect has, over time, created an unspoken barrier to women’s full participation in the legal system.

By mandating separate toilet facilities, the Court has taken a step toward gender inclusivity in the legal profession. While this order may not dismantle the larger issues of gender disparity in law, it is a crucial recognition that institutional infrastructure plays a role in shaping professional experiences.

Beyond Toilets: A Larger Conversation on Access to Justice
The ruling in Rajeeb Kalita is emblematic of a broader conversation about court infrastructure in India. If a basic necessity like clean restrooms has been ignored for so long, what does that say about the state of accessibility in our judicial system? Courtrooms across the country are plagued with problems—lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities, overcrowded waiting areas, poor ventilation, and minimal technological advancements.

The judgment should serve as a wake-up call. If courts are to be temples of justice, they must not merely function as spaces for legal adjudication but also as environments that uphold the dignity and well-being of all who enter them. Accessibility and infrastructure should not be afterthoughts—they are fundamental to the efficient delivery of justice.

The Way Forward
Implementing the Court’s directive will require more than just policy decisions—it will require a shift in mindset. Judicial authorities and state governments must prioritize infrastructure reforms, ensuring that facilities are maintained long after their construction. A one-time order will not suffice unless there is a sustained commitment to improvement.

Moreover, this ruling should set a precedent for future judicial interventions on similar issues. If the judiciary can recognize the importance of basic sanitation, it can also take up matters of court digitization, physical accessibility, and overall modernization. The ruling should not be the end of a conversation—it should be the beginning of a movement toward better, more humane court environments.

Conclusion
The verdict in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. is a victory for dignity, gender equality, and access to justice. It reminds us that legal systems must be designed not just to deliver justice but to uphold the humanity of those who interact with them. The real impact of this judgment will not be in its pronouncement but in its execution—will courts truly transform into spaces of inclusivity and respect? Or will this ruling be yet another forgotten directive, lost in the clutter of judicial orders?

Only time will tell. But for now, this judgment serves as a powerful reminder that justice, in its truest form, is about more than laws—it is about people.

 

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Tarun Choudhury
Member since Feb 23, 2018
Location: Greater Noida
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top