Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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