Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra

Access To Clean And Hygienic Toilets Is Not Just A Matter Of Convenience But A Fundamental Right Under Article 21: Supreme Court

17 January 2025 9:40 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court Mandates Hygienic and Inclusive Toilet Facilities in All Court Premises Across India. Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment addressing the deplorable state of toilet facilities in courts and tribunals across the country. The Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to construct and maintain separate, accessible, and hygienic toilets for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities (PwDs). It also mandated regular maintenance and monitoring of these facilities to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory obligations.

Judgment Recognizes Toilets as a Constitutional Right Under Article 21

The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes access to hygienic and functional sanitation facilities. It stated:

"Courts should not be places where basic needs, such as sanitation, are overlooked or neglected. The absence of adequate washroom facilities undermines equality and poses a barrier to the fair administration of justice."

Invoking Articles 47 and 48A of the Constitution, the Court observed that providing sanitation facilities is an obligation of the State to promote public health and maintain a clean environment.

The writ petition was filed by Advocate Rajeev Kalita under Article 32 of the Constitution as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The petitioner highlighted the lack of adequate and accessible toilet facilities in court complexes across India, particularly for women, PwDs, and transgender persons. He argued that the existing facilities were poorly maintained, inaccessible, and often unusable, violating the right to dignity and hygiene under Article 21.

The petitioner relied on precedents, including Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 990) and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, to assert that sanitation is a fundamental right integral to human dignity.

"Toilets Are Not a Privilege but a Right Integral to Human Dignity"

The Court reiterated that the denial of clean and accessible toilets violates the right to dignity under Article 21. It stated:
"The failure to provide adequate washroom facilities is not just a logistical issue but reflects a deeper flaw in the justice system. Courts must lead by example in upholding human rights and dignity."

"Separate and Inclusive Facilities for Transgender Persons Are Mandatory"

Quoting the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India case, the Court underscored that transgender persons face severe discrimination due to the lack of separate toilets, leading to harassment and exclusion. The judgment directed the creation of gender-neutral and clearly marked washrooms for transgender persons.

"Global Best Practices Should Inform India's Approach"

The Court examined international benchmarks, including Singapore's Happy Toilet Programme and Japan’s Universal Toilet Initiatives, and urged Indian courts to adopt eco-friendly and inclusive designs.

Directives Issued by the Supreme Court

The Court issued comprehensive directions to address the crisis:

  1. Construction of Toilets

    • High Courts and State Governments must construct separate and accessible toilets for men, women, transgender persons, and PwDs in all court premises within four months.

  2. Maintenance and Monitoring

    • Committees chaired by High Court Judges must be constituted to monitor toilet construction, maintenance, and fund utilization. Regular cleaning and maintenance must be outsourced to professional agencies.

  3. Accessibility for PwDs

    • Install ramps, tactile pavements, and other accessibility features in court complexes. Ensure functional amenities like handrails and grab bars in toilets for PwDs.

  4. Sanitary Facilities for Women

    • Provide sanitary napkin dispensers and waste disposal facilities in women's toilets. Install child-safe washrooms and breastfeeding rooms in family courts.

  5. Transparency and Accountability

    • Allocate separate funds for toilet construction and maintenance, and publish annual audit reports. Create grievance redressal mechanisms to address issues promptly.

  6. Eco-Friendly Toilets

    • Use environment-friendly technologies like bio-toilets and adopt modular designs for old court buildings.

  7. Compliance Reports

    • High Courts and State Governments must file compliance reports within four months.

This ruling marks a significant step towards improving judicial infrastructure in India, ensuring that court premises are accessible, inclusive, and hygienic for all stakeholders. By affirming sanitation as a constitutional right, the judgment paves the way for broader reforms in public health and infrastructure.

Date of Decision: January 15, 2025

Latest Legal News