The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment on January 15, 2025, has emphasized the need for accessible and hygienic toilet facilities in court premises across the country. The directions aim to ensure privacy, safety, and dignity, particularly for women and transgender persons, while promoting public health and well-being.
This decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan while deciding a writ petition filed by Rajeeb Kalita in 2023. The petitioner had sought directions to all States and Union Territories (UTs) to provide basic toilet facilities in courts and tribunals for men, women, persons with disabilities (PwD), and transgender individuals.
The Legal Framework Supporting the Judgment
The Supreme Court drew upon multiple legal and constitutional provisions to justify its decision:
- Constitutional Mandate: The Court referred to Articles 14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The right to life under Article 21 has been interpreted to include the right to live with dignity, which encompasses access to basic sanitation facilities.
- Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: The Act mandates the government to take measures for the welfare of transgender persons, including providing separate public toilet facilities.
- Harmonised Guidelines for Universal Accessibility in India: Issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, these guidelines advocate the construction of separate, accessible toilets for men, women, and transgender persons.
- *Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on its earlier judgment in *National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), which recognized the rights of transgender persons to equality and dignity. This case had directed the government to provide separate public toilets and other facilities for transgender persons.
Key Observations by the Court
The Bench highlighted several critical issues that warranted intervention:
- Lack of Accessible Facilities: While public toilets exist near toll plazas and highways, they are often poorly maintained and inaccessible. Court premises also lack adequate sanitation facilities, affecting judges, advocates, litigants, and staff who spend long hours there.
- Impact on Women and Transgender Persons: The absence of hygienic and private toilets disproportionately affects women and transgender persons, compromising their safety and dignity.
- Duty of the State: The Court reiterated that every State and UT must prioritize public health and sanitation as part of their welfare responsibilities.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
To address these concerns, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Construction of Toilets: All States and UTs must construct separate, hygienic toilet facilities for men, women, PwD, and transgender persons in all court premises.
- Maintenance and Hygiene: The constructed facilities must be well-maintained, clean, and accessible at all times.
- Periodic Review: High Courts, in consultation with committees constituted for this purpose, must periodically review the condition of these facilities.
- Funding: State governments are directed to allocate sufficient funds for the construction, maintenance, and upkeep of these facilities.
- Compliance Monitoring: A status report on the implementation of these directions must be filed by all High Courts and States/UTs within four months.
Global Practices and Lessons
The Court also examined international practices in creating inclusive public restrooms. Many countries have adopted measures to ensure universal accessibility and inclusivity. Examples include gender-neutral toilets and facilities designed to accommodate individuals with disabilities. These practices underscore the importance of dignity and privacy for all individuals, irrespective of gender or physical ability.
Public Health and Human Rights
The Supreme Court emphasized that clean and accessible public toilets contribute significantly to public health and overall societal well-being. The right to safe drinking water and sanitation is recognized globally as essential for the enjoyment of all human rights. By addressing this issue, the Court has reinforced the principle that the right to life includes the right to live in a clean, safe, and dignified environment.
Challenges and Way Forward
While the Court’s directions mark a significant step forward, challenges remain in ensuring effective implementation:
- Infrastructure Deficiencies: Many court premises, particularly in rural areas, lack the basic infrastructure required for constructing and maintaining toilets.
- Maintenance Issues: Ensuring regular cleaning and maintenance of toilet facilities is critical to their usability.
- Awareness and Sensitization: There is a need to raise awareness among stakeholders, including court staff and the general public, about the importance of hygienic and inclusive sanitation facilities.
- Budgetary Constraints: Allocating sufficient funds and ensuring their proper utilization will require coordinated efforts from the judiciary, government, and local authorities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. is a progressive step towards ensuring dignity, privacy, and safety for all individuals, particularly women and transgender persons. By mandating inclusive and hygienic toilet facilities in court premises, the Court has highlighted the fundamental role of sanitation in promoting public health and human rights.
As States and UTs work towards implementing these directions, the focus must remain on creating sustainable, accessible, and well-maintained facilities. This judgment serves as a reminder that a welfare state is one that prioritizes the health and dignity of its citizens, fostering an environment where justice is not only delivered but also experienced in a dignified manner.
Please refer to our previous posts too.
