On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment addressing a critical yet often overlooked aspect of judicial infrastructure: sanitation. In the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Rajeeb Kalita, a practicing advocate, the apex court underscored the fundamental right to dignity and hygiene under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that the absence of proper toilet facilities in courts across India violates the right to life and personal liberty, particularly for judges, litigants, advocates, and court staff.
The PIL sought a Writ of Mandamus to ensure separate and accessible toilet facilities for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities (PwDs) in all court premises. The petitioner argued that basic sanitation is an integral aspect of human dignity and should not be denied to those engaging with the justice system. Highlighting the deplorable conditions in district courts, the petition shed light on issues such as broken plumbing, inadequate maintenance, and the lack of gender-inclusive facilities.
Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.
Article 47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of
living and to improve public health. 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 and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs
Article 48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of
forests and wild life. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. The court not only acknowledged these systemic deficiencies but also issued comprehensive directions for immediate rectification. It mandated the formation of committees in every High Court to oversee the construction, maintenance, and modernization of toilet facilities in courts and tribunals.
These committees will ensure separate restrooms for all genders, breastfeeding facilities for nursing mothers, child-friendly spaces in family courts, and proper accessibility features like ramps and tactile indicators for PwDs.
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
Section 3. Prohibition against discrimination.—No person or establishment shall
discriminate against a transgender person on any of the following grounds,
namely:—
(a) the denial, or discontinuation of, or unfair treatment in, educational
establishments and services thereof;
(b) the unfair treatment in, or in relation to, employment or occupation;
(c) the denial of, or termination from, employment or occupation;
(d) the denial or discontinuation of, or unfair treatment in, healthcare services;
(e) the denial or discontinuation of, or unfair treatment with regard to, access to,
or provision or enjoyment or use of any goods, accommodation, service, facility,
benefit, privilege or opportunity dedicated to the use of the general public or
customarily available to the public
Significantly, the judgment drew inspiration from global best practices, such as Singapore's "Happy Toilet Programme" and Germany's "Toilets for All" initiative, to highlight the need for innovative and inclusive solutions.
The court also directed the outsourcing of cleaning services to professional agencies, transparent allocation of funds, and the adoption of environment-friendly technologies like bio-toilets.
other Foreign References,
Singapore exemplifies meticulous public toilet maintenance through its National Environment Agency's stringent guidelines. The UK emphasizes accessible and inclusive restroom policies, ensuring equitable access for all. Australia boasts the National Toilet Map, a comprehensive resource with over 16,000 listed facilities. Germany's "Toilet for All" program specifically caters to individuals with severe disabilities. Canada actively promotes inclusive portable restroom initiatives. Finally, Japan showcases innovative universal toilet designs through companies like LIXIL, prioritizing user-friendliness and accessibility.
Mandatory Facilities:
Separate toilets: For men, women, people with disabilities (PwDs), and transgender individuals in all courts.
Child-friendly washrooms: In family courts.
Committees in High Courts:
Each High Court to form a committee (led by a judge) to plan and oversee the implementation of these directions.
Specific Measures:
Sanitary pad dispensers: In women's toilets.
Accessibility: Accessible signage and ramps for PwDs.
Nursing and infant care: Facilities in women's restrooms.
Audit and Monitoring:
Regular inspections: To ensure proper maintenance.
Feedback mechanisms: To address complaints.
Funding and Outsourcing:
Dedicated funds: For construction and maintenance of the facilities.
Professional agencies: To handle cleaning and upkeep.
Heritage Buildings:
Modern sanitation solutions: While preserving the architectural integrity of heritage court buildings.
Timeline and Reports:
Compliance reports: High Courts and States must submit reports within four months.
(a)All High Courts may be directed to ensure availability of separate toilets for
judges and advocates across all District and magisterial Courts. Further, orders
may also be passed to ensure separate toilets for male and female judges.
(b)High Court may be further directed to ensure separate toilets for male, female
and differently abled advocates; and similarly have separate toilets for male,
female and differently abled litigants.
(c)To identify lacunae in the existing infrastructure of toilets, a comprehensive
audit may be conducted of toilet facilities in all Districts and High Courts. To this
end, a committee can be constituted in the each of the High Courts which may
identify the loopholes in the infrastructure of toilets with special reference to a
toilet in each chamber in the subordinate judiciary.
(d)Mechanism must be developed for addressing grievances relating to
maintenance and cleanliness of toilets across all courts.
(e) Provisions may be made, incrementally, to provide sanitary napkins free of
cost or at a nominal rate across all courts and tribunals. To this end, automated
dispensers may be installed across courts along with proper facility for disposal
of used sanitary napkins.
(f)Provisions must be made to ensure availability of tap water across all toilets.
(g)Indian Railways has adopted bio-toilets across trains, same or similar
technology may be incorporated to install new environment friendly toilets across
courts in the country as well to further the goal of sustainable development.
(h)Regular maintenance in the cleaning facilities and upkeep in all courts of the
States must be ensured. To ensure regular maintenance of toilets, this service can
be outsourced to the Professional Agencies on the same model as the Supreme
Court of India.
(i)Historic Court buildings such as Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Allahabad, etc.
must be retrofitted with modern toilet while maintaining their architectural
integrity. To this end, separate study may be needed to be carried out to examine
how to maintain such architectural integrity.
(j)High Courts and State Governments may consider having separate budget
allocated for construction and maintenance of toilets. To ensure transparency of
funds, annual audit report may be published on High Court website
The High Courts and State Governments/UTs have been directed to construct and maintain separate toilet facilities for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities (PwDs) in all court premises and tribunals.
These facilities must be clearly identifiable and accessible to judges, advocates, litigants, and staff.
Each High Court is required to form a committee within six weeks, chaired by a judge nominated by the Chief Justice, with members including the Registrar General, Chief Secretary, PWD Secretary, Finance Secretary, and a representative of the Bar Association. This committee will oversee the implementation of a comprehensive sanitation plan.
Key tasks include:
Collecting statistics on court visitors to determine the number of toilets needed.
Conducting surveys to identify gaps in infrastructure and maintenance.
Providing alternative facilities like mobile toilets during construction and adopting environment-friendly bio-toilets.
Ensuring clear signage, ramps, and fully functional amenities such as water, electricity, and sanitary pad dispensers for all genders.
Maintaining architectural integrity in heritage court buildings by using underutilized spaces and modular solutions.
Implementing a mandatory cleaning schedule with professional cleaning agencies and modern methods.
The State Governments and UTs have been instructed to allocate adequate funds for these initiatives, with periodic reviews conducted in consultation with the High Court committees. A status report on compliance must be submitted by all High Courts and States/UTs within four months
This judgment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to fostering a dignified environment for all stakeholders in the legal system. By linking sanitation to the right to life, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that goes beyond judicial infrastructure—it serves as a reminder that access to justice begins with ensuring basic human rights.
YouTube Video
Case Laws :
Amarnath Shrine v. Union of India
Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India
Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India
State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.
P. Saravanan v. Union of India
Milun Suryajani v. Pune Municipal
Commissioner, in a PIL
Re: Dignity, Respect & Honour of Girls and
Women
Comments