Sanitation Mandate: Indian Courts to Provide Toilets for All


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: RAJEEB KALITA vs. UNION OF INDIA.

Citation: 2025 INSC 75 (Reportable)

Background of the Case

  • This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
  • The petitioner, Rajeev Kalita, a practicing advocate, sought a Writ of Mandamus.
  • The writ was to direct all states and union territories to ensure basic toilet facilities in all courts and tribunals.
  • The facilities should be for men, women, persons with disabilities (PwD), and transgender persons.
  • The petitioner also requested that urinals and similar conveniences be provided and maintained at appropriate locations in every court premise.
  • The petitioner sought directions for the construction of public toilets that are identifiable and accessible to advocates, litigants, and court staff, including amenities for persons with disabilities.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that the right to life with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, includes the necessity of basic hygiene and sanitation facilities.
  • The petitioner emphasized that no human being can live with dignity without access to facilities for maintaining basic hygiene.
  • The petitioner also invoked Article 47 of the Constitution, which outlines the State's duty to improve public health.
  • Additionally, the petitioner referenced Article 48A, which mandates the state to protect and improve the environment.
  • The petitioner also referenced the Government of India's 'Swachh Bharat Mission' as well as international policies promoting public toilet access.
  • The lack of sanitation facilities was considered a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Initial Court Directions

  • On May 8, 2023, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to file affidavits.
  • The affidavits were to detail the availability of toilets for men, women, and transgender persons.
  • The High Courts were also to provide information on the steps taken for the maintenance of toilets.
  • The court sought details on whether separate toilet facilities were made available to litigants, lawyers, and judicial officers.
  • The court also asked whether adequate sanitary napkin dispensers were available in women’s toilets.
  • The High Courts were further directed to upload relevant data on the newly operationalized iJuris portal within two weeks.

Review of Legal Provisions, Reports and Guidelines

  • The court reviewed relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, including Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), Article 47 (duty of the State to improve public health), and Article 48A (protection of the environment).
  • The court noted the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, which prohibit discrimination against transgender persons.
  • The Harmonised Guidelines & Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021, were cited which emphasize the need for accessible public washrooms for all users including persons with disabilities and transgender persons.
  • A report by the Centre for Research & Planning, Supreme Court of India, highlighted the inadequacy of toilets for judges, staff, lawyers, and litigants, as well as the lack of separate facilities for different genders.
  • The report also noted the lack of separate ladies’ toilets in 19.7% of district court complexes and the absence of female-friendly facilities in 73.4% of district courts.
  • The Supreme Court Accessibility Committee Report, published in October 2023, specifically addressed the need for separate toilets for transgender persons.

International Laws

  • The court also considered international laws, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which ensures the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.
  • The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) was noted, which recognizes the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, linked to sanitation.
  • The court noted that the UN General Assembly Resolution No.A/RES/64/292, states that access to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential for the full enjoyment of life.
  • The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR) report on the Right to Sanitation, 2010, reaffirms that sanitation is fundamental for human survival and for living a life with dignity.
  • The Human Rights Council Resolution No.A/HRC/15/L.14 affirmed that the right to safe drinking water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living.

Previous Case Laws

  • The court reviewed several previous judgments, including Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, which emphasized the obligation of the State to ensure conditions conducive to good health.
  • In Re. Amarnath Shrine v. Union of India was cited, where the court held that the expression "life" under Article 21 includes the right to a better standard of living and hygienic conditions.
  • The court considered Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, highlighting that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes with it.
  • Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India was cited, asserting that the jurisprudence of the right to life encompasses human personality with invigorated health.
  • State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. was referenced, where the court emphasized that a hygienic environment is integral to a healthy life.
  • The court also referenced National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, which dealt with separate toilets for transgenders and stated that discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation or gender identity impairs equality.
  • The Rajasthan High Court’s observations in Re: Dignity, Respect & Honour of Girls and Women about the consequences of inadequate toilet facilities for women were cited.
  • The Bombay High Court's ruling in Milun Suryajani v. Pune Municipal Commissioner that women have a right to safe and clean toilets was noted.
  • The Madras High Court’s decision in P. Saravanan v. Union of India that a neat and hygienic toilet is a citizen’s right was also cited.
  • New Bombay Advocates Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra was mentioned, which stated the constitutional duty of the government to provide judicial infrastructure without the excuse of financial limitations.
  • The Delhi High Court’s directions in Smita Kumari Rajgarhia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi to inspect washroom facilities across all District Courts were also noted.

Global Examples

  • The judgment cited examples from various countries, highlighting best practices.
  • Singapore's National Environment Agency (NEA) and Restroom Association of Singapore (RAS) guidelines on public restroom design and maintenance were referenced.
  • The UK's emphasis on public toilets for tourism, including the British Toilet Association and the guide Improving Public Access to Better Quality Toilets were noted.
  • Australia's National Toilet Map was cited as a tool for public access to information on toilets.
  • Germany's "Toilet for All" initiative (also called "Changing Places"), which supports facilities for people with severe disabilities was mentioned.
  • Canada’s "Pop-Up Winnipeg Public Toilet" initiative with portable restrooms was noted.
  • Japan’s LIXIL's all-gender universal toilets that accommodate diverse needs were also referenced.

Observations of the Court

  • The court observed that public health is of paramount importance and that clean public toilets contribute to the health and well-being of society.
  • It emphasized that the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is essential for the full enjoyment of life and human rights.
  • The court reiterated that the right to life includes the right to a healthy and hygienic life and the right to live with dignity.
  • The court observed that the need for toilets is acute for judges, advocates, litigants, and staff members working in courts and tribunals.
  • The court considered the responses submitted by various High Courts to the initial court order, which demonstrated deficiencies in the facilities.
  • The court took note of the suggestions made by the petitioner and the Additional Solicitor General of India to improve court facilities.
  • The court further took note of additional suggestions of the Calcutta High Court, regarding gender neutral toilets and baby feeding rooms.
  • The court expressed concerns about the poor conditions in many courts, with old toilets in unusable condition, insufficient water supply, and inadequate maintenance.
  • The court noted that there was a lack of transparency concerning funds for the construction of toilet facilities.

Rationale, reasoning given by the Judges

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that access to proper sanitation is not just a matter of convenience but a basic necessity which is a facet of human rights.
  • The court linked the right to proper sanitation to the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which inherently includes ensuring a safe and hygienic environment for all individuals.
  • The court noted the State's duty to ensure a healthy environment and improve public health under the Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution.
  • Access to justice includes creating a pleasant and humane environment for all stakeholders in the dispensation of justice.
  • The court reasoned that litigants should not be forced to refrain from exercising their legal rights for fear of lacking basic amenities.
  • The court concluded that court premises must be equipped with proper washroom facilities for judges, advocates, litigants and staff members.
  • The court expressed concern that judges in rural areas lack proper washroom facilities, which tarnishes the reputation of the judicial system and violates basic rights.
  • The court stated that the failure to provide adequate washroom facilities reflects a flaw in the justice system and undermines equality.

Key Directives and Orders

  • The Supreme Court directed all High Courts and State/Union Territory governments to ensure the construction of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all court premises and tribunals across the country.
  • The court mandated that these facilities must be easily identifiable and accessible to judges, advocates, litigants, and court staff.
  • Each High Court must form a committee to oversee the planning, implementation, and maintenance of these facilities, chaired by a judge and including the Registrar General, state government secretaries, and bar association representatives, within six weeks.
  • The committees must assess the number of daily court visitors and plan adequate facilities, survey existing infrastructure, implement immediate solutions like mobile toilets during construction, ensure clear signage, functional amenities, and disabled-friendly designs, create a maintenance schedule with professional cleaning services, establish a complaint redressal mechanism, provide sanitary pad dispensers, appoint a nodal officer, establish a transparent financial fund and ensure child-safe and mother-friendly facilities in family courts.
  • State/UT governments must allocate sufficient funds for toilet construction and maintenance, reviewed periodically with the High Court committees.
  • High Courts should create a grading system to benchmark maintenance levels for courts under their jurisdiction.
  • High Courts and States/UTs must submit a status report within four months.

Excerpt, important quotes from the decision

  • "The scope of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and all the necessities of life, such as, adequate nutrition, clothing, health, etc., and no human being can live with dignity unless there are facilities to maintain basic hygiene."
  • "Hygienic environment is an integral facet of healthy life. Right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in the absence of humane and healthy environment."
  • “Right to Life” set out in Article 21, means something more than mere survival or animal existence...The right also includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in different forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.
  • "access to public toilets is also a serious problem they face quite often. Since there are no separate toilet facilities for hijras/transgender persons, they have to use male toilets where they are prone to sexual assault and harassment. Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore, impairs equality before law and equal protection of law and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
  • "the need for toilets/washrooms/restrooms is even more acute for judges / advocates/ litigants/ staff members working in large number in the Courts and Tribunals as they are mostly struck in one place for longer periods because of the demands of the job and the system in the function of the courts/Tribunals."
  • "In our opinion, toilets / washrooms / restrooms are not merely a matter of convenience, but a basic necessity which is a facet of human rights. Access to proper sanitation is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty."

Points to Remember

  • Fundamental Right: Access to sanitation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • Inclusivity: Courts must provide separate, accessible, and well-maintained facilities for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities.
  • State Responsibility: The State has a constitutional duty to provide basic infrastructure, and financial limitations cannot be an excuse.
  • High Court Committees: Each High Court must form a committee to oversee the implementation and maintenance of these facilities.
  • Comprehensive Planning: Committees must conduct surveys, identify needs, and implement solutions for construction and maintenance.
  • Specific Amenities: Courts must provide running water, electricity, operational flushes, hand soap, napkins, toilet paper, and proper plumbing.
  • Maintenance: Regular cleaning schedules and outsourced maintenance with professional agencies are required.
  • Redressal Mechanism: Courts must establish a complaint system for reporting and quickly addressing defective facilities.
  • Sanitary Napkins: Working and stocked sanitary napkin dispensers in women, PwD, and transgender washrooms are necessary.
  • Nodal Officers: A nodal officer must be appointed at each court to monitor maintenance and address complaints.
  • Transparent Funding: A separate, transparent fund must be allocated for the construction and maintenance of toilet facilities.
  • Child and Mother-Friendly Facilities: Family Courts should establish child-safe washrooms, and all courts must provide nursing and diaper-changing facilities in women's toilets.
  • Grading System: A grading system for district courts should be created by the High Courts to ensure consistent quality of maintenance.
  • Compliance: The High Courts and State Governments /UTs must submit a status report within four months.
  • Global Standards: The judgment references international best practices for public sanitation.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more