Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sarika Tyagi vs Union Of India on 17 July, 2026
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 770/2026
SARIKA TYAGI & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 17-07-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. MOHANA
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arjun Yaduvanshi, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Adv.
Mr. D. Vidyanandam, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. C. Solomon, AOR
Petitioners-in-person
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG
Ms. Khushboo Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Sunit Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Moulik Shrivastva, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv.
Ms. Hemadri Sharma, Adv.
Mr. R. Venkataramani, AG
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv.
Ms. Ameyvikrama Thanvi, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Indraneel Chowdhury, Advocate General
Mr. Arun Chandra, Adv.
Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv.
Ms. Akansha, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Chinmoy Sharma, Sr. A.A.G.
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2026.07.22
Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR
17:15:36 IST
Reason: Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv.
Ms. Sagun Srivastva, Adv.
1
Mr. S.G. Sanjay Bihar, Advocate General
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, AG
Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR
Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Advocate General
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate General
Mr. Biswajit Deb For Mizoram, Advocate General
Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Rahul Saboo, Adv.
Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Anand, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Shamra, Adv.
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.
Mr. B. Karunakaran, AOR
Ms. Jayasri, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Mr. S N Babulkar, Advocate General
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv.
Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
2
Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR
Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR
Ms. Gunjan Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Chaitanya Sonkeria, Adv.
Ms. Aastha Harshwal, Adv.
Mr. Areeb Husain, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR
Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR
Ms. Narain Rashika Ashok, AOR
Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv.
Ms. Preksha Diwakar, Adv.
Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR
Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv.
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR
Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. Shlok Luthra, Adv.
Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR
Mr. Shivam Kunal, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv.
Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. I.V. Sai Nikhil, Adv.
Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv.
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv.
M/S. Mukesh Kumar Singh And Co., AOR
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Anindita Pujari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv.
3
Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv.
Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Shreyansh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Devi Prasad Semwal, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Gehlot, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Pratatp Rai, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Seth, Adv.
Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv.
M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR
Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv.
Ms. Jayna Kothari, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Adv.
M/S. Radiam Law, AOR
Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, AG
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, AG
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR
Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Harshad V Hameed, AOR
Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv.
Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR
Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, AG
Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR
Mr. Sravan Kumar Karnam, Adv.
Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, AG
Mr. Aman Panwar, AAG
Ms. Anishka Vaishnav, Adv.
Ms. Adoorya Harish, Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR
Mr. Shaktimoy Chakraborty, AG
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, AG
4
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi, AAG
Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Sonakshi Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Anup K. Rattan, AG
Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, AAG
Mr. Puneet Rajia, AAG
Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR
Mr. Kamal Balkrishna Trivedi, AG
Mr. Swapneel Sejpal, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Sonakshi Sinha, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. On oral prayer of the learned ASG, respondent No.1 is deleted
from the array of parties. Respondent No. 2 stands renamed as
‘Union of India, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law and
Justice, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001’.
2. I.A. No.197568/2026 (application for impleadment) is allowed.
The applicants are permitted to be impleaded as party petitioners.
3. In deference to our order dated 19.06.2026, learned Attorney
General for India along with all the States/Union Territories
through their Advocates General and Standing Counsel have entered
appearance.
5
4. Multiple issues of paramount public interest have been
deliberated in the course of the hearing.
5. One of the prayers made through the instant petition is the
creation and operationalisation of a corpus of funds for financial
assistance to the young advocates in the initial years of their
practice. The Learned Attorney General for India has volunteered to
convene a meeting of all the Advocates General and standing counsel
for States and Union Territories to discuss the modalities for
creation of the said corpus. We have no reason to doubt that all
the States will come forward and volunteer to provide a mechanism
through which substantial contribution to the proposed corpus can
be made. We, therefore, request the learned Attorney General for
India to convene the meeting at the earliest, at his convenience,
and apprise this Court of its outcome.
6. The other principal prayer concerns the absence of adequate
washroom and sanitation facilities for women advocates in courts
across the country.
7. Access to basic health necessities is an essential part of the
right to life, a principle which has, time and again, been the
foundation of judicial pronouncements by this Court. That being so,
it is indisputable that access to a washroom amounts to an
inalienable and universal fundamental right traceable to Article 21
of the Constitution, especially the right to live a healthy and
dignified life.
8. The claim for ensuring such right, furthermore, assumes a
deeper shade when it comes to the circumstances highlighted in the
instant petition, namely, the pitiful condition of washrooms
6
available for women in public judicial buildings, such as High
Courts, District Courts, and Sub-Divisional Courts across India. It
has been pointed out that in some places, there is no washroom for
women whatsoever in the public areas of the court premises. In
other cases, although a room designated as “women’s washroom”
exists, the same is not adequately fitted, does not have running
water, or is kept in a sanitary condition. The women members of the
bar are, thereby, forced to walk long distances, across multiple
buildings, to find a usable washroom, if any available in the first
place.
9. That the circumstances are such, in our opinion, is a travesty
of justice. The lack of sanitary facilities for women lawyers is
prima facie discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15.
Moreover, when many young female lawyers are looking to learn and
grow in the profession, the absence of such basic human facilities
creates an insurmountable hurdle for their entry and continuation
in the profession, raising graver concerns regarding the freedom to
practice the profession under Article 19(1)(g). In our considered
opinion, no institutional efforts to improve participation of women
lawyers in the profession, especially in the Courts, will bear any
fruit until it is ensured that women can work in courtrooms in a
healthy and dignified manner. There is no gainsaying that such duty
of the State is constitutionally acknowledged under Article 42.
10. With these tenets in mind, we have requested all the Advocates
General to obtain a fact-finding report with respect to the
existence and state of such infrastructure for lady members of the
bar in High Courts, District Courts, as well as Taluka Courts. They
7
shall do the needful within two weeks.
11. Thereafter, a proposal shall be put up before the State
Government for allocation of special funds to construct washrooms
and ensure accompanying water and sanitation facilities. It shall
be the responsibility of the Public Works Departments in all the
States/Union Territories to commence the construction of washrooms
with requisite facilities, wherever the same is not available,
within four weeks from the date of submission of the reports by the
learned Advocates General to the State Government.
12. We make it abundantly clear that non-availability of funds
will not be accepted as any level of justification for delay in
initiation of the work. This is especially so, given that the
denial of basic amenities, like washrooms, running water, and
sanitary conditions, has been consistently held by this Court to be
a failure of the right to a dignified life, which is, indeed, a
basic human right as well.
13. A status report by each State Government/Union Territory shall
be filed within a period of six weeks, highlighting the information
received as well as steps taken to construct the washrooms.
14. This Court shall not entertain any request for leniency in the
time schedule prescribed hereinabove, and every State Government
shall be obligated to do the needful within the stipulated period.
15. List for compliance and further orders on 11.09.2026.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS DY. REGISTRAR
8
