Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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