Supreme Court Mandates Inclusive Court Sanitation as a Fundamental Right

1. Introduction

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in RAJEEB KALITA v. UNION OF INDIA (2025 INSC 75). This case was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, highlighting the absence of adequate and accessible toilet facilities across courts and tribunals in the country. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, contended that lack of hygienic toilets infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and contravenes multiple constitutional and statutory mandates. The Supreme Court’s decision is significant because it firmly establishes the principle that inclusive and hygienic sanitation in all judicial premises is not merely a necessity but an integral facet of the fundamental right to live with dignity.

The judgment meticulously surveys domestic and international legal standards on sanitation, acknowledges the need for separate facilities for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities (PwD), and directs all States and Union Territories to implement a time-bound plan for providing and maintaining adequate court toilet infrastructure.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, speaking through the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, granted extensive relief in response to the PIL. The Court issued mandatory directions to:

  • Ensure separate toilet/washroom facilities for men, women, PwD, and transgender persons in all courts and tribunals.
  • Constitute a dedicated committee in each High Court, comprising senior judges and relevant government officials, to survey existing court infrastructure, recommend improvements, and oversee fund allocation specifically for toilet construction and maintenance.
  • Provide hygienic conditions by mandating running water, well-maintained fixtures, clean floors, adequate lighting, and secure locks in all existing and newly built toilets.
  • Install sanitary napkin dispensers and appropriate disposal facilities in women’s washrooms, coupled with essential design modifications to ensure easy access for persons with disabilities.
  • Introduce a grievance redressal mechanism through designated nodal officers in every court complex, tasked with promptly resolving complaints and ensuring regular upkeep.
  • Submit compliance reports within four months, followed by a further review of progress by the Supreme Court.

With these directions, the Supreme Court definitively underscored that the right to sanitation, particularly within court premises, is indispensable for preserving the dignity of all stakeholders in the judicial process.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

The Court cited numerous landmark precedents and legal frameworks to illuminate the longstanding recognition of sanitation and health as part of the right to life.

  • Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 165 – Emphasized that a healthy body is the foundation for all human activities, tying public health to Article 21.
  • National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438 – Mandated separate facilities for transgender persons to ensure they are not denied access to bathrooms and suffer discrimination.
  • Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 922 – Expanded the definition of the right to life to include the right to live with dignity and access to essential facilities.
  • Bombay High Court’s Judgment in Milun Suryajani v. Pune Municipal Commissioner – Held that women’s right to have safe and clean toilets at all convenient locations is essential to living with dignity.
  • Madras High Court in P. Saravanan v. Union of India – Affirmed the principle that a neat, hygienic toilet is a right of the citizen and directed augmenting of public toilet facilities.

These cases collectively influenced the Supreme Court’s stance, illustrating that the judiciary has consistently interpreted sanitation as a core value under fundamental rights.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning revolves around the recognition that the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses more than mere survival. Drawing from Article 47 (duty of the State to improve public health) and Article 48A (protection and improvement of environment), the Bench reasoned that having accessible and sanitary toilet facilities in court complexes is integral to upholding human dignity. The Court emphasized:

  1. Fundamental Right to Dignity: Lack of hygienic toilets directly affects the dignity of litigants, lawyers, judges, and court staff. People should not be compelled to limit their water intake or suffer discomfort when seeking access to justice.
  2. Equal Treatment: The Court placed significant weight on ensuring separate facilities for men, women, transgender persons, and the differently abled, thereby preventing discrimination and upholding the principle of equality under Article 14.
  3. Broader Constitutional Duty: States and Union Territories, as welfare governments, cannot cite financial constraints to evade their duty. Courts serve as the hub of legal redress, making it paramount for governments to fulfill obligations regarding infrastructure and maintenance rigorously.

3.3. Impact

This judgment is poised to have a far-reaching impact on India’s judicial system:

  • Elevated Court Infrastructure: By enforcing the creation and continued maintenance of sanitary facilities, court environments will become more welcoming and accessible. This improved infrastructure will help expedite proceedings and reduce absenteeism caused by avoidable health or personal discomfort reasons.
  • Increased Accessibility for Transgender Persons and PwD: Specific, binding directions ensure that transgender persons and persons with disabilities have inclusive access, removing barriers and safeguarding their fundamental rights.
  • Strengthening of Judicial Credibility: The judiciary’s compliance with essential human rights standards will enhance public trust. People often spend long hours in courts—litigants, witnesses, and lawyers deserve dignified treatment both inside and outside the courtroom.
  • Policy Enforcement and Accountability: The mandated committees will enforce guidelines, conduct periodic inspections, and maintain a transparent budgeting system for judicial infrastructure, thus ensuring accountability at all levels.
  • Template for Other Public Institutions: Although directly aimed at courts, the principles of inclusive sanitation and infrastructure are equally relevant to other government buildings and public spaces that face similar maintenance and accessibility challenges.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

While the judgment spans various references to domestic statutes and international accords, some of the key concepts can be simplified as follows:

  • Right to Life (Article 21): Interpreted broadly, it means the right to live a dignified life. Courts have repeatedly ruled that hygiene, health, and sanitation form an integral part of this right.
  • Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): Though not enforceable in a court of law by themselves, these principles (e.g., Article 47 and 48A) guide the State in shaping policies. The Court used these constitutional directives to reinforce the States’ responsibility to maintain adequate public health standards.
  • Transgender Rights: The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020 prohibit discrimination in accessing public facilities. Creating separate, secure toilets for transgender persons is a direct outcome of this statutory mandate.
  • International Covenants: Instruments like the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights), and UN resolutions underscore the global consensus that sanitation is a fundamental human right.
  • Inclusive Infrastructure: The term emphasizes not only building enough toilets but also ensuring they are accessible to all, including mothers with infants, persons with mobility issues, and visually impaired individuals.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in RAJEEB KALITA v. UNION OF INDIA (2025 INSC 75) stands as a critical step toward affirming that sanitation is an indivisible part of the right to life and dignity. The directions issued—ranging from constructing dedicated washrooms for different genders and the differently abled, to installing sanitary napkin dispensers and enforcing regular upkeep—are both granular and visionary.

Courts are spaces meant for justice delivery, and the setting in which justice is dispensed must also be just. By recognizing that the denial of adequate toilet facilities hinders participation and dilutes dignity, the Court has significantly advanced the evolution of fundamental rights jurisprudence in India. This decision, therefore, ensures a more inclusive and empathetic judicial system—one that facilitates access to justice not only through legal pronouncements but through the basic comforts that dignify human existence.

Overall, this judgment is expected to serve as a model for transforming not just judicial premises, but also other public institutions struggling with similar infrastructural shortcomings. By harmonizing constitutional mandates, human rights norms, and practical measures, the Supreme Court has once again reiterated the non-negotiable nature of dignity, health, and equality for every person stepping into a court of law.