Summary: This article is the fourth in a series outlining the need for user-centric court infrastructure in India, addressing the requirements of diverse users to ensure universally accessible, adaptable, efficient, safe & comfortable, and sustainable courts for all. The 2024 Design Handbook and the 2019 Building Better Courts report further discuss these issues in depth.
Litigant C, a farmer from a rural area, speaks only the local language. She is the sole earning member of her family and has two children. Her 13-year old daughter recently confessed that she had been sexually abused in her school premises. Litigant C reached out to a local NGO working for child rights and protection, who helped her file a complaint at the local police station. After two months, a chargesheet has at last been filed at the District Court, and Litigant C and her daughter are visiting the court for the first time.
Visit to the Court Complex
The District Court is located in the district headquarters, which is around 24 km from their village. Litigant C and her daughter take the bus; however, the nearest bus stop is at least 1 km away from the District Court Complex, and they have to walk in the hot sun. Upon arriving at the gate, they are stopped by security guards who belligerently ask them what the purpose of their visit is. Litigant C’s daughter, who is already apprehensive and scared, begins to cry. The security guards let them inside only after an advocate, who has been standing nearby, intervenes.
Litigant C is unaware of any private entrance to the Court building, which would allow for children and other vulnerable litigants and witnesses to navigate the Court Complex in safety and comfort, ensuring that they do not come into contact with the accused persons or others. Therefore, Litigant C has to weave her way through the crowd at the main public entrance.
She has been told by the NGO that she will have to first reach the Prosecutor’s office, to discuss the details of the case with the Prosecutor who will be representing them. She has not been given any contact details or instructions on how to locate the office within the sprawling Court Complex. She walks around, feeling lost, trying to find a map. She asks a passer-by for help, who merely points her towards some signs stuck on a piece of paper at the notice-board in the corridors and rushes away. Litigant C is unable to read the notice, which is not in the local language.
The Court building is crowded, and her daughter grows restless and scared by the endless rush of advocates, litigants, and staff through the corridors, carrying files and speaking in loud voices. By a stroke of luck, Litigant C eventually locates the offices of the Special Public Prosecutor assigned to handle POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) cases, on the third floor of the building. The office is small and cramped, with a chipped desk, two rickety chairs and cupboards teetering with files. The Special Public Prosecutor is currently busy in court, and Litigant C sits on the chair to wait, trying to calm her daughter down.
The Special Public Prosecutor arrives during the lunch break. He is in a hurry, and merely questions Litigant C’s daughter in brusque, short terms to glean the facts of the case. Litigant C’s daughter is intimidated and grows silent. Impatiently, the Special Public Prosecutor dismisses them and tells them to be present in the POCSO Court at 2 PM, where the initial hearing will take place.
Exploring the Court Facilities
Litigant C has not come prepared with food, assuming that she will be able to purchase something at a subsidised rate from the canteen, as the NGO helpers had advised. However, upon enquiry, she is told that the canteen facilities are only available for advocates and staff. Litigants can purchase food from one of the many food stalls set up near the parking lot. Litigant C and her daughter hurry to eat something before having to be present in court, sitting under a tree in the parking area. The cool air helps to calm her daughter a little, for which Litigant C is very grateful.
Her daughter then asks to use the restroom; however, on the first two floors of the building that they visit, the restrooms are locked. At last, they locate an open restroom; however, her daughter takes a look and then announces that she would rather not use the facilities, as it is very dirty and has clearly not been cleaned in some time. The taps are broken, and there is no running water.
The POCSO Court is located in a corridor on the fifth floor. Litigant C notices a lift nearby, which a passer-by tells her is meant for the exclusive use of children and survivors of sexual violence. However, when the lift door opens, her daughter is startled. A policeman stands inside the lift, accompanied by two men whom Litigant C assumes to be accused persons in a POCSO case. The policeman states that he wants to use the lift to securely transport the accused, and advises Litigant C and her daughter to use the stairs instead.
There is a small waiting room near the POCSO Court. Litigant C expects it to have some books or toys which can distract her daughter and calm her down. However, her daughter quickly takes a desire to the gaudily-painted room. The room has designs of Disney princesses on the walls, which her daughter does not understand or care for. There are a few worn-out soft toys, better suited for much younger children, and picture books in English. There are posters on the wall, showing how children are victims of abuse. Her daughter is scared and once again restless.
Within the POCSO Courtroom
Their case is finally called for hearing at 3:15 PM, following delays in recording evidence of child witnesses in the previous case. Litigant C and her daughter enter the Courtroom. Her daughter is called towards the front of the courtroom and asked to enter the witness box, an intimidating stand at a height from the floor more suitable to an adult than a child. Litigant C is told to stay at the back on the public benches, and is not allowed to stand next to her daughter or help her as she grows agitated at the questions being asked by the Special Public Prosecutor in the process of recording evidence.
There is a stand at the back of the Courtroom, separated by a partly-torn, flimsy curtain, behind which the accused person sits. The judge asks the accused a question, and his reply is loud and clear in the courtroom, scaring the girl further. Upon seeing that she is frightened, the judge takes pity and invites the girl to her chambers, assuring her that it will be calmer and quieter. Litigant C waits anxiously for her daughter to return.
After half an hour, they emerge from the chambers. Litigant C is happy to see that her daughter looks more peaceful; however, the judge says that they have not yet managed to finish recording the evidence, and that they will have to come back next week for another hearing. Litigant C and her daughter leave the Court Complex, worrying about how many more visits they will be required to make, and unsure about when the trial will end.
Areas for Intervention
In order to ensure that someone like Litigant C is able to receive effective justice and to bolster her faith in the system, the following improvements should be implemented in Courts:
1. Legal services and legal aid facilities, to aid litigants and parties who may not be aware of their rights and the intricacies of the legal process;
2. Facilities for navigating Court Complexes easily and securely, particularly those ensuring minimal interaction with members of the public and accused persons, in the case of vulnerable victims and witnesses;
3. Amenities for public visitors, including adequate washrooms, waiting rooms and food/drinking water;
4. Child-friendly facilities, including age-appropriate toys/books, a soothing environment, and sensitivity in interactions with children;
5. Facilities for information regarding case progress, and the availability of support persons to guide litigants.
Brinda Sastry is an architect, urban designer, and planner with experience in participatory approaches to formulating policies, audit frameworks and design guidelines, to ensure inclusive and equitable design of public places. Priyamvadha Shivaji and Shreya Tripathy are Senior Resident Fellows, Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors in their personal capacity. The following narrative has been drawn from our experiences with the judicial system over the last six years, and is not fictional; it is a composite of the stories narrated to us as part of our conversations with multiple judicial officers in various courts across India. Please see the introduction to this series for more details
[Ed Note: The piece has been edited by Saranya Ravindran and published by Tamanna Yadav]