Case Name: Rajeeb Kalita Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) NO. 538 of 2023
Date: January 15, 2025
Quorum: Justice R. Mahadevan
FACTS OF THE CASE
Rajeev Kalita, a lawyer practicing in Assam and adjoining areas, filled public-interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for provision to be made for adequate, hygienic bathroom facilities in courts and tribunals across the country, inclusive of men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities. Kalita pointed out that the absence of toilet facilities violates the fundamental right to live with dignity provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Pointing out the lack of separate and feasible toilets for the litigants, advocates, and court staff in many court complexes, especially in rural India, the petitioner would underline this is not just a logistical issue but also a part of the dignity of human life and public health. Articles 47 and 48A of the Constitution that wanted health and environmental conditions improved were mentioned in the petition. Various international frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and guidelines from the Swachh Bharat Mission were used to justify the claims made.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether lack of adequate and hygienic toilet facilities in court premises constitutes a violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State has performed its duties as prescribed in the Constitution of India regarding Articles 47 and 48A.
- What steps should be taken to ensure availability, accessibility, and maintenance of hygienic toilet facilities in courts and tribunals?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to life, which entails the right to live with dignity.
- Articles 47 and 48A of the Constitution: Directs the state to improve public health and protect the environment.
- Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: Prohibits discrimination in access to facilities.
- Guidelines on Universal Accessibility in India, 2021: Emphasizes and focuses on accessible public toilets.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted in his plea that the lack of proper toilet facilities in all courts is violative of the right to live with dignity under Article 21. He submitted that many of the court complexes do not have separate toilets for men, women, and transgender persons, and even if toilets exist, on many occasions, they are filthy or unapproachable. The petitioner submitted that clean, accessible, modern toilet facilities that include sanitary napkin dispensers and separate washrooms for persons with disabilities should be established.
The petitioner also pointed out that the reports of the government on the inaction was, on his interpretation, violative of international standards and constitutional obligations. He drew attention to various existing policies like the Swachh Bharat Mission, suggesting that some court complexes should have been a model scheme of urban sanitation.
Arguments by the Respondent:
The respondents alleged that initiatives were in place to enhance court infrastructure, including the furnishing of toilets. They supported this with an affidavit that described the availability of toilets in various courts and stated future improvements. The respondents sought to make emphasis with respect to the dilemma of budgeting and stressed the structural cognizance taken with these old court facilities in rural areas. They also expressed their assurance to the Court that the issues raised by the petitioner would be one approached in a phased manner.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court recognized the submissions of the petitioner as valid and urgent. It noticed that inadequate toilet facilities in the court deny access to justice as litigants and advocates, especially women and transgender people, suffer abuses and hardships. It was stated by the Court that the absence of basic amenities such as toilets amounts to a violation of Article 21 as it is a reasonable restriction on the right to live with dignity.
The Court noted that while some High Courts and state governments had acted positively to improve sanitation facilities, action was either inconsistent or inadequate. It stressed the urgent need for uniform directions governing the construction, maintenance, and accessibility of such facilities across the courts and tribunals.
The Court urged the need for inclusive and sustainable solutions based on comparisons with certain global practices and certain domestic policies. It gave examples like Singapore’s Restroom Association and Australia’s National Toilet Map, which underline managing public sanitation.
JUDGMENT
Among the instructions provided by the Supreme Court with respect to proper sanitation facilities on court premises, all High Courts and state governments were to provide separate, easily accessible toilets for persons of different genders, namely men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities. These facilities would have clear signage and be operational with modern amenities like sanitary napkin dispensers and children-friendly spaces.
Every High Court was directed to constitute a committee chaired by a High Court judge, which will supervise the construction and provision of toilets. The committees were characterized with the responsibility of identifying the shortfalls, coming up with detailed plans, and ensuring the regular upkeep of the toilets. Mobile toilets and bio-toilets in the interim measure shall be provided during construction to ensure that there would be no disruption.
State governments were therefore urged to allocate specific funds for construction and maintenance of these relevant facilities. Total transparency and accountability in fund utilization was highly advocated, along with periodic compliance reports from all High Courts and state governments within four months.
The Court indicated that professional services should be engaged for all cleaning tasks, with continuing audits and easy recourse for grievance redressal. It also recommended certain modular solutions and expert consultations with regard to the necessary improvements in sanitation without damaging the architectural integrity of heritage court buildings.
CONCLUSION
This judgment is a worthy assertion of the commitment of the judiciary to uphold the dignity and the rights of all its stakeholders. By linking public sanitary issues with fundamental rights, it sets a benchmark for addressing the inadequacies of the infrastructure in public institutions. The ruling speaks about immediate action and further accentuates sustainable, participatory solutions that today allow courts to exist as arenas for equality, dignity, and justice for all.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SAGORIKA MUKHERJEE
