Media Report About Lack Of Toilet Facilities For Women Lawyers In Nilgiris Court Incorrect; Resulted In Negative Portrayal Of Judiciary : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the media report about the lack of toilet facilities for women lawyers in Nilgiris District Court complex in Tamil Nadu district was incorrect. Referring to a report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court indicating the facilities given for women lawyers, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure about the media report, which it said resulted in a "negative portrayal" of the judiciary and the Madras High Court in particular.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud noted that the issue ultimately emanated out of rivalry between two associations of lawyers. While the Women Lawyers Association Of Nilgiri (WLAN) claimed that there was lack of toilet facilities for women, the official association Nilgiris District Bar Association(NDBA) refuted the claim.

Last month, taking cognizance of a report in an online portal as per which women lawyers lacked toilet facilities, the Supreme Court had sought a report from the Madras High Court.

Today, after referring to the report of the High Court, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha remarked that it was "deeply disconcerted" by the manner in which the issue  was taken to the media.

"Quite frankly, I am disturbed by the way this was orchestrated in media and the Madras High Court was sought to be portrayed in very poor light by stating something which was contrary to the facts. They're members of bar so we are not taking any stern measures. Anyway we're closing now. Between the fight of two rival segments, High Court was portrayed in a bad light", CJI remarked.

At the outset, CJI DY Chandrachud, taking into account the report of the Madras High Court Registrar General which had indicated that an area was made available as a bar room as well as for toilet facilities, stated that the report by the Registrar General had given the court an elaborate idea of the matter. He added–

"They have provided enough toilets for women".

When the lawyer for the WLAN stuck to the claim, CJI said that he is willing to appoint a commission of two lawyers for fact-finding.

"I am willing to appoint a commission of two lawyers of Supreme Court and go find out. But should we find that there are toilets, we'll impose costs of 10 Lakhs. Because then it would be a frivolous petition and it would be painting judiciary in a very bad light", CJI warned.

The counsel for the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris continued his arguments –

"There are no ladies toilets! Form a commission my lords. The lady lawyers are here. They've heard the report. They're asking to appoint a commission. They're willing to pay costs if found incorrect."

Senior Advocate V Mohana, appearing for the NDBA, refuted the claims of WLAN.

Ultimately, the bench came to the view that the issue related to the disputes between the association. She said that there are 45 women in the association and 6-7 members formed another association which is not recognized. Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the Madras High Court, opposed the plea and expressed concerns about the media report bringing disrepute to the Court.

CJI DY Chandrachud told the petitioner :

"As per the status report of the registrar general, you've been provided with toilets now. The report indicates that the area is made available as a bar room as well as toilet facilities. In view of report, it is not necessary to pursue this further. Disposed of."

When the counsel further insisted, the Chief Justice remarked–

"There are two rooms given, plus washrooms. The bar room is also available to them. You can't use this Court to settle your grievance...The Registrar General has said that they were offered two rooms and they were not accepted".

NDBA was represented by V Mohana Senior Advocate, B Raghunath Adv, NC Kavitha Adv and Sriram Parakkat AoR.

Case Title: Women Lawyers Association Of Nilgiris v. The Registrar, Madras High Court And Anr. MA 1378/2023 in W.P.(C) No. 511/2023

 Click Here To Read/Download Order