A Call for Gender-Sensitive Infrastructure in India’s Judicial System

A recent Supreme Court hearing in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India has thrown light on a shocking reality; many women Judges across India are deprived of private washrooms in court buildings.¹ This issue surfaced when a female judicial officer from Gujarat expressed, in a letter to the Court, that she was forced to rely on her senior male colleague’s washroom due to the absence of private facilities. Such an oversight is not merely inconvenient; it is a violation of basic dignity. During the hearing, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal voiced their concern, asking if female judicial officers across the country had access to private washrooms. The response was a troubling lack of data — reflecting how even the most fundamental of requirements for women’s workplace dignity is all too often ignored.

The recent remarks by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, stating that it is “unfortunate that many female judicial officers have no private washrooms”, shine a glaring light on the inadequacies within the judicial infrastructure in India.² This comment not only highlights a pressing issue but also underscores the broader implications of gender equality within public institutions. The Chief Justice’s call for change is not merely about improving facilities; it is about ensuring that women in the judiciary can perform their duties with dignity and respect.

The broader issue of gender-sensitive infrastructure

The absence of basic facilities for female judicial officers highlights a deeper issue: the glaring lack of gender-sensitive infrastructure in public institutions. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud recently revealed that just 6.7% of District Court infrastructure in India can be considered female-friendly — a stark reflection of systemic neglect.³ This gap is particularly troubling given the growing representation of women in the judiciary, with recruitment rates in some States reaching 60-70%.⁴ Yet, fundamental needs like private washrooms remain unmet, creating an environment that is not just inconvenient but also inequitable. Such deficiencies undermine efforts toward workplace inclusivity and send a disheartening message to women striving for equal participation in public service.

This case sheds light on a broader, systemic issue that goes beyond one court or State. A nationwide public interest litigation, which prompted this case, had earlier urged the Supreme Court to ensure that all courts provide clean, accessible washrooms for men, women, persons with disabilities, and transgender individuals.⁵ High Courts across the country subsequently filed affidavits on restroom availability, maintenance, and cleanliness. While some courts demonstrated adequate facilities, others, particularly at the district level, did not meet basic standards. The glaring omission of private washrooms for female judicial officers is yet another facet of this inequality, underscoring how infrastructural deficits can compromise the professional experience of women within the judiciary.

This is not an isolated issue. Across various institutions in India, workplaces often overlook the need for gender-specific facilities. Such oversight implies that women, even those in esteemed roles such as Judges, must navigate an environment that subtly reinforces their secondary status. When a female Judge lacks private facilities, it is a reminder that while her role may be equal, her treatment is not.

Aligning with global commitments and the SDGs

The lack of gender-sensitive judicial infrastructure is not merely a national issue — it undermines India’s commitments to global frameworks like the sustainable development goals (SDGs). SDG 5 (gender equality) explicitly calls for ending discrimination against women and ensuring equal opportunities in all spheres, including workplace environments.⁶ The absence of basic facilities such as private washrooms for women Judges highlights systemic gender disparities and contradicts the spirit of this goal. Similarly, SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) emphasises universal access to safe and adequate sanitation facilities, which is fundamental to human dignity.⁷ Courts, as public institutions, must lead by example in achieving this standard. Ensuring clean, accessible washrooms in judicial buildings reflects India’s commitment to the broader principles of equality and inclusion that underlie these global goals. It is a necessary step to transform public institutions into spaces where everyone — irrespective of gender — can function with dignity and comfort. Moreover, this issue ties into SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), which seeks to eliminate systemic disparities across institutions.⁸ The lack of facilities for women judicial officers highlights broader infrastructural and policy gaps that perpetuate inequality in traditionally male-dominated fields.

Beyond the SDGs, India is also a signatory to international frameworks like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)⁹. CEDAW mandates States to ensure that women have equal access to public spaces and infrastructure. Persistent gaps in judicial infrastructure reflect non-compliance with these obligations, exposing the need for urgent action. Upgrading facilities in courts is not just a logistical improvement — it is a critical move towards aligning domestic practices with international norms of gender justice. Addressing these issues goes beyond fulfilling international commitments. It signals that India recognises the inherent dignity of women in the judiciary and is willing to take meaningful steps to create a fair and equitable environment for them.

Structural reforms and innovative solutions for gender-sensitive infrastructure

Integrating structural policy changes and innovative solutions is essential to fostering judicial spaces that prioritise gender equity. Global examples highlight best practices in ensuring accessibility and inclusivity for women within the judicial system. For instance, Tunisia’s Femmedina project involves participatory decision-making where women help design interventions like public toilets and market spaces, addressing their specific needs and enhancing safety. Similarly, Liberia has adopted gender-sensitive urban planning through projects such as water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities in informal settlements, significantly reducing women’s burdens and improving their socio-economic prospects¹⁰

From an infrastructural perspective, including gender-responsive indicators and budgeting in policy frameworks is vital. This ensures that resources are allocated to initiatives aimed at addressing inequalities within public institutions, including judiciary spaces. Enhancing gender-sensitive infrastructure in the judiciary demands a combination of structural reforms and innovative solutions. A pivotal step could be establishing a Judicial Infrastructure Development Authority (JIDA) tasked with overseeing planning, fund allocation, and timely implementation of upgrades. Such an authority, modeled after similar frameworks in countries like Germany, where judicial governance includes transparent allocation for gender-focused projects, can ensure accountability and efficiency.¹¹ JIDA would address the systemic gaps highlighted in cases like Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India¹² and align its operations with India’s sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions). A proposal for establishing a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India (NJIAI) was also given by the then CJI N.V. Ramana, however, no consensus was reached for its approval.¹³

Complementing existing efforts is the Nyaya Vikas portal, a digital initiative by the Department of Justice under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for the Development of Infrastructure Facilities for District and Subordinate Judiciary.¹⁴ The scheme has evolved to address contemporary needs, introducing lawyers’ halls, toilet complexes, and digital computer rooms for enhanced convenience and functionality. Building on this foundation, further innovations could involve integrating gender-responsive indicators directly into the portal’s monitoring framework. For example, participatory design processes could allow women judicial officers to actively contribute to planning infrastructure upgrades, ensuring their unique requirements are prioritised. Drawing inspiration from civic engagement platforms in jurisdictions like the United States and Estonia, where technology bridges gaps between citizens and public administration, India could refine the Nyaya Vikas portal to incorporate a real-time feedback mechanism. Such enhancements would not only empower judicial officers and litigants but also foster a culture of accountability among stakeholders. Combining such structural changes with innovative technology-driven solutions can create judicial spaces that are not only equitable but also aligned with India’s constitutional commitment to justice and dignity for all.

A call to action: Prioritising dignity in the judiciary

The lack of private facilities for women in courts must no longer be relegated to the realm of administrative inconvenience; it is a matter of basic human dignity and systemic equality. Judicial and governmental bodies must recognise this deficiency as an urgent priority, addressing it with the same seriousness they apply to legal and procedural reforms. Treating such fundamental issues as ancillary not only diminishes the judiciary’s standing but also contradicts its mandate to uphold justice and equity.

To rectify this oversight, it is essential to create and enforce a comprehensive timeline for judicial infrastructure upgrades. Accountability measures for delays must be clearly defined, with regular monitoring and transparent reporting mechanisms in place. For instance, leveraging technology through the Nyaya Vikas portal, as proposed, can ensure real-time reporting and tracking of progress. Furthermore, periodic assessments by independent bodies, modeled after international practices such as Germany’s infrastructure audits, would bring objectivity to the process.¹⁵

Conclusion: Towards a judiciary rooted in dignity and equality

The judiciary, often perceived as a beacon of integrity and impartiality, cannot afford to overlook the basic needs of its female officers. The absence of gender-sensitive infrastructure undermines the very values the institution is meant to champion. As former Chief Justice Chandrachud aptly pointed out, with women constituting a growing share of the judiciary, it is not just a logistical imperative but a moral and institutional necessity to provide them with equitable working conditions. The lack of such support not only impacts their efficiency and morale but also tarnishes the judiciary’s image as a progressive and inclusive institution.

Creating a judiciary that prioritises dignity and equity is not merely about addressing the needs of today’s workforce — it is about setting a precedent for future generations. By bridging infrastructural gaps, we strengthen not only the environment within which justice is delivered but also the legitimacy of the institution in the eyes of the public. It is a reflection of a society’s commitment to fairness when its courts, the highest protectors of rights, lead by example.

The time for change is now. A judiciary that fails to ensure dignity within its own walls risks eroding its moral authority to demand it elsewhere. As we advocate for a judicial system that aligns with values of equality and respect, let us remember that the smallest acts of inclusion — such as providing private facilities — can yield profound impacts on an institution’s credibility and effectiveness. It is imperative to act decisively, for a judiciary that upholds dignity within its ranks will invariably inspire confidence and trust beyond them.