Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025)

Date of the Judgment: 15 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 75

Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can the lack of basic toilet facilities in courts violate the fundamental rights of individuals? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a practicing advocate. The court’s judgment emphasizes that access to clean and hygienic toilets is not merely a matter of convenience but a basic human right, essential for living with dignity and accessing justice. This ruling mandates that all courts across India provide adequate and well-maintained toilet facilities for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, with the majority opinion authored by Justice R. Mahadevan.

Case Background

The petitioner, Rajeev Kalita, a practicing advocate, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the lack of basic toilet facilities in courts across India. He argued that this deficiency violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. The petitioner emphasized that the right to live with dignity includes access to basic necessities such as adequate sanitation and hygiene. He also pointed out the State’s duty to improve public health under Article 47 and protect the environment under Article 48A of the Constitution. Additionally, the petitioner cited the ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’ and international policies stressing the importance of public toilets for all genders and persons with disabilities. The petitioner contended that the absence of clean and hygienic toilets in court premises undermines the fundamental rights of advocates, litigants, and court staff, thus necessitating the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, recognizing the importance of the issue, directed all High Courts to submit detailed affidavits regarding the availability and maintenance of toilet facilities in their respective jurisdictions on 08.05.2023. The High Courts were required to provide information on the availability of toilets for men, women, and transgender persons, steps taken for maintenance, whether separate facilities were available for litigants, lawyers, and judicial officers, and whether sanitary napkin dispensers were available in women’s toilets. Subsequently, the court reviewed the responses and considered the suggestions of the petitioner and the Additional Solicitor General of India before issuing its judgment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and international laws:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This article was interpreted to include the right to live with dignity, encompassing access to basic necessities like sanitation.
• Article 47 of the Constitution of India: “The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties…” The court noted the State’s duty to improve public health, which includes providing adequate sanitation.
• Article 48A of the Constitution of India: “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.” The court emphasized the State’s responsibility to protect the environment, which is linked to public health and sanitation.
• Section 3 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: Prohibits discrimination against transgender persons, including denial of access to public facilities.
• Rule 10 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020: Mandates the creation of infrastructure facilities, including separate washrooms, for transgender persons.
• Harmonised Guidelines & Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021: Emphasizes the need for separate toilets for men, women, and transgender persons, as well as accessible toilets for persons with disabilities.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (Article 25): Recognizes the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (Article 12): Recognizes the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including the improvement of environmental and industrial hygiene.
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. A/RES/64/292 (2010): States that the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• The petitioner argued that the lack of basic toilet facilities in courts violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to live with dignity and basic necessities.
• The petitioner highlighted the poor condition of existing toilets, including broken fixtures, lack of maintenance, and inadequate water supply.
• The petitioner emphasized the need for separate, functional, and accessible toilets for men, women, transgender persons, and differently-abled persons in all court buildings.
• The petitioner also pointed out the absence of sanitary facilities, such as sanitary napkin dispensers, in women’s toilets.
• The petitioner submitted that there is a lack of transparency regarding the funds allocated for the maintenance of toilets and that there is a need for a grievance redressal mechanism for reporting issues related to toilet facilities.
• The petitioner suggested that the maintenance and cleaning of court toilets should be outsourced to professional agencies.
• The petitioner also raised concerns about the lack of child-friendly facilities in family courts and the absence of breastfeeding facilities for nursing mothers.
• The petitioner also highlighted the issues of lack of proper infrastructure in extreme cold and hot regions and also in coastal areas.

Respondent’s Submissions (Union of India):

• The respondent agreed that there is a need for separate toilets for judges and advocates across all courts.
• The respondent suggested that a comprehensive audit of toilet facilities should be conducted in all districts and High Courts.
• The respondent proposed that a mechanism should be developed for addressing grievances related to the maintenance and cleanliness of toilets.
• The respondent suggested that provisions should be made for sanitary napkins, tap water, and bio-toilets in all courts.
• The respondent proposed that the maintenance of toilets should be outsourced to professional agencies.
• The respondent also suggested that a separate budget should be allocated for the construction and maintenance of toilets and that annual audit reports should be published on High Court websites.

Calcutta High Court’s Submissions:

• The Calcutta High Court mentioned that it has gender-neutral toilets in one of its buildings and that this can be extended to other court premises.
• The High Court suggested that the maintenance of toilets can be outsourced to private agencies.
• The High Court also suggested that budgetary allocation should be made by the State/Central Government for hourly cleaning of toilets.
• The High Court also suggested that awareness programmes should be organized in courts to increase awareness regarding the use of toilets.
• The High Court also suggested that a committee should be formed to review the scope of improvement of toilet facilities.
• The High Court also suggested that baby feeding rooms should be created in court buildings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the lack of basic toilet facilities in courts violates the fundamental rights of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. What measures should be taken to ensure adequate and well-maintained toilet facilities in all court premises across the country.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on various authorities to support its reasoning and establish the importance of basic sanitation as a fundamental right. The authorities were used to demonstrate the following points:

• Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India [1987] 2 SCC 165*: This case was used to emphasize the State’s obligation to ensure conditions for good health, which is a part of the right to life.
• In Re. Amarnath Shrine v. Union of India [2013] 3 SCC 247*: This case was used to highlight that the right to life includes better living standards and hygienic conditions.
• Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [1999] 6 SCC 667*: This case was used to reiterate that the right to life includes living with human dignity and basic necessities, which includes access to sanitation.
• Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 922*: This case was used to emphasize the importance of human dignity and health, which are essential for a meaningful life.
• State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. [2003] 7 SCC 389*: This case was used to state that environmental pollution violates the right to life and that a hygienic environment is essential for healthy life.
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [2014] 5 SCC 438*: This case was used to highlight the need for separate toilets for transgender persons and that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Re: Dignity, Respect & Honour of Girls and Women (Order dated 03.12.2024 in C.W.No.18518/2024)*: This case was used to highlight the health issues faced by women due to lack of proper toilet facilities.
• Milun Suryajani v. Pune Municipal Commissioner 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6256*: This case was used to state that women have the right to safe and clean toilets at all convenient places, which is a part of their right to live with dignity.
• P. Saravanan v. Union of India (Order dated 17.08.2021 made in W.P(MD)No.4959 of 2019)*: This case was used to state that a neat and hygienic toilet is a right of the citizen and that public toilets should be provided across the State.
• New Bombay Advocates Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 8558*: This case was used to emphasize the constitutional duty of the government to provide judicial infrastructure, including basic facilities like clean toilets and drinking water.
• Smita Kumari Rajgarhia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Order dt. 16.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.14517 of 2024)*: This case was used to highlight the importance of clean, functional, and secure washroom facilities, especially for women.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court interpreted Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, which encompasses access to basic sanitation.
• Article 47 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized the State’s duty to improve public health, which includes providing adequate sanitation.
• Article 48A of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized the State’s responsibility to protect the environment, which is linked to public health and sanitation.
• Section 3 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: The Court used this provision to highlight the prohibition of discrimination against transgender persons, including denial of access to public facilities.
• Rule 10 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020: The Court used this rule to highlight the mandate for the creation of infrastructure facilities, including separate washrooms, for transgender persons.
• Harmonised Guidelines & Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021: The Court used these guidelines to emphasize the need for separate toilets for men, women, and transgender persons, as well as accessible toilets for persons with disabilities.
• Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: The Court used this to highlight the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.
• Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966: The Court used this to highlight the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including the improvement of environmental and industrial hygiene.
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. A/RES/64/292 (2010): The Court used this to highlight that the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a strong emphasis on the fundamental right to life with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court recognized that access to basic sanitation is not merely a matter of convenience but a crucial component of human dignity and public health. The Court was also influenced by the submissions made by the petitioner, the Union of India, and the Calcutta High Court, which highlighted the deplorable conditions of toilets in court premises and the need for urgent action. The Court considered the international laws, reports, and guidelines, which emphasized the importance of sanitation as a human right. The Court was also concerned about the lack of facilities for transgender persons, women, and differently-abled persons. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to ensure that the judicial system is accessible and inclusive for all.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. The Court held that this right includes access to basic sanitation facilities. The Court also relied on various international conventions and guidelines, which recognize sanitation as a human right. The Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner, the Union of India, and the Calcutta High Court, which highlighted the deplorable conditions of toilets in court premises and the need for urgent action. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to ensure that the judicial system is accessible and inclusive for all. The court also analyzed the reports submitted by the High Courts and noted the lack of facilities for transgender persons, women, and differently-abled persons.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached by considering all the above factors and the need to ensure that the judicial system is accessible and inclusive for all.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• Access to proper sanitation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The lack of adequate toilet facilities in courts violates the right to live with dignity.
• The State has a duty to improve public health and provide adequate sanitation facilities.
• The need to ensure inclusivity and accessibility for all individuals, including transgender persons and persons with disabilities.
• The need to align with international human rights standards that recognize sanitation as a human right.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the right to life with dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, includes access to basic sanitation facilities. The lack of adequate and well-maintained toilet facilities in court premises violates this fundamental right. The State has a constitutional obligation to provide and maintain such facilities for all individuals, including men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities. This obligation is reinforced by the State’s duty to improve public health, as mandated by Article 47 of the Constitution, and to protect the environment, as mandated by Article 48A of the Constitution. The judgment also emphasizes the need to ensure inclusivity and accessibility for all individuals, including transgender persons and persons with disabilities, as per the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the Harmonised Guidelines & Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021. The Court also relied on international laws and treaties to support the view that access to sanitation is a human right.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta in the judgment includes the following observations and suggestions:

• The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive audit of toilet facilities in all districts and High Courts to assess the current situation and identify areas for improvement.
• The Court suggested that a mechanism should be developed for addressing grievances related to the maintenance and cleanliness of toilets, ensuring that complaints are promptly addressed.
• The Court recommended that provisions should be made for sanitary napkins, tap water, and bio-toilets in all courts to promote hygiene and convenience.
• The Court suggested that the maintenance of toilets should be outsourced to professional agencies to ensure cleanliness and proper upkeep.
• The Court recommended that a separate budget should be allocated for the construction and maintenance of toilets, and annual audit reports should be published on High Court websites to ensure transparency and accountability.
• The Court also suggested that awareness programs should be organized in courts to increase awareness regarding the use of toilets and to promote good hygiene practices.
• The Court highlighted the need for child-friendly facilities in family courts and the creation of breastfeeding facilities for nursing mothers.
• The Court emphasized the need for proper infrastructure in extreme cold and hot regions and also in coastal areas to ensure that toilet facilities are functional and accessible in all weather conditions.
• The Court acknowledged the Calcutta High Court’s initiative of having gender-neutral toilets in one of its buildings and suggested that this can be extended to other court premises.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. All High Courts and State Governments/UTs are directed to ensure the construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all court premises and tribunals across the country within six months.
2. The High Courts are directed to constitute a committee to oversee the implementation of these directions and to ensure that the toilet facilities are well-maintained and accessible.
3. The High Courts are directed to submit a compliance report to the Supreme Court within three months detailing the steps taken to implement these directions.
4. The High Courts are directed to ensure that the toilet facilities are cleaned regularly and that adequate water supply is available.
5. The High Courts are directed to ensure that sanitary napkin dispensers are available in women’s toilets.
6. The High Courts are directed to ensure that the toilet facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities.
7. The High Courts are directed to ensure that there is a grievance redressal mechanism for reporting issues related to toilet facilities.
8. The High Courts are directed to ensure that there is a separate budget for the construction and maintenance of toilets.
9. The High Courts are directed to ensure that the maintenance of toilets is outsourced to professional agencies.
10. The High Courts are directed to ensure that annual audit reports are published on their websites.
11. The High Courts are directed to organize awareness programs in courts to increase awareness regarding the use of toilets.
12. The High Courts are directed to ensure that baby feeding rooms are created in court buildings.
13. The High Courts are directed to ensure that proper infrastructure is provided in extreme cold and hot regions and also in coastal areas.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025) marks a significant step towards ensuring basic sanitation and hygiene in court premises across India. By recognizing access to adequate and well-maintained toilet facilities as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court has emphasized the importance of human dignity and public health. The judgment mandates that all courts provide separate, functional, and accessible toilets for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities. It also directs the High Courts to oversee the implementation of these directions and to ensure that the toilet facilities are cleaned regularly and that adequate water supply is available. The judgment is a landmark decision that will have far-reaching implications for the judicial system and for the protection of the fundamental rights of all individuals.