A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 538 of 2023 (decided 15 January 2025), recognizes access to functioning, gender-sensitive and accessible toilet facilities in judicial premises as an essential facet of Article 21 the right to life and personal liberty and as a constitutional duty under Part IV. The Court held that toilets/washrooms/restrooms are not mere conveniences but basic necessities integral to human dignity, health and the meaningful exercise of access to justice. After collecting affidavits from all High Courts and analysing national guidelines, statutory provisions (notably Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020), Supreme Court reports and international instruments, the Court recorded widespread infrastructural shortfalls crumbling blocks, lack of water, non-functional fittings, absence of separate facilities for women, persons with disabilities and transgender persons and deficient maintenance/fund-transparency.

Relying on precedents that develop Article 21 and Directive Principles, the Court issued structured remedial directions:

(i) mandatory construction/availability of separate toilets for males, females, PwD and transgender persons in all courts/tribunals;

(ii) constitution of a High Court-level committee under a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice to survey, plan and monitor implementation;

(iii) allocation of funds by States/UTs;

(iv) steps for accessibility, signage, sanitary dispensers, interim mobile/bio-toilet options, outsourcing maintenance where appropriate; and

(v) filing of status reports within four months. The directions are framed to protect dignity, ensure non-discrimination and remove barriers to fair administration of justice.

Keywords: Article 21, sanitation, courts infrastructure, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, accessibility, human dignity, Directive Principles.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed a public interest writ under Article 32 seeking mandamus to direct States/UTs and courts to ensure basic toilet facilities in all courts/tribunals for men, women, persons with disabilities and transgender persons. The petition advanced the proposition that Article 21‘s guarantee of life and personal liberty necessarily incorporates the right to live with dignity and to basic hygiene conditions without which access to justice and meaningful participation in judicial processes are compromised.

The writ relied on domestic precedent expanding Article 21, Directive Principles under Articles 47 and 48A, national schemes (e.g., Swachh Bharat guidelines), the Harmonised Guidelines & Standards for Universal Accessibility (2021), Supreme Court infrastructure reports and international instruments (UDHR, ICESCR, UN resolutions recognizing sanitation as a human right). In response to interim directions, the Supreme Court called for tabular affidavits from all High Courts on availability, maintenance, separation of toilets for judges, lawyers and litigants and provision of sanitary napkin dispensers; extensive returns followed, exposing systemic deficits across the district and High Court levels.

The Court analysed statutory rules (including Rule 10 of the Transgender Rules, 2020), institutional reports (Supreme Court Accessibility Committee, Centre for Research & Planning report) and comparative foreign practices to frame rights-centred, practicable remedial directions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner practises in multiple Northeastern jurisdictions and alleged persistent denial of access to clean, functional toilets within court premises for advocates, litigants, staff and judicial officers. The petition highlighted that many district court complexes suffer crumbling or locked toilet blocks, absent water supply, broken fittings and lack of sanitary provisions; several High Court returns admitted inadequate or non-functional facilities, poor maintenance and a dearth of separate facilities for women, PwD and transgender persons. Affidavits revealed absence of data on funds, timelines or accountability mechanisms; specific examples included the Saket courts (Delhi) with filthy toilets and an instance in Kokrajhar where stench required shifting of the District Judge Court.

The Supreme Court gathered affidavits from every High Court and received detailed suggestions: audits, dedicated budgets, outsourcing maintenance, modular solutions for heritage courts, pad dispensers, signage and tactile access for visually impaired litigants. Empirical data in institutional reports showed a high proportion of district courts lacking women-friendly facilities and nearly no separate third-gender washrooms in many jurisdictions. These factual matrices informed the Court’s assessment that the right to sanitation within judicial premises is a constitutional entitlement linked to dignity and equality.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether access to clean, functional and gender-sensitive toilet facilities in court and tribunal premises falls within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution?
ii. Whether States/UTs and High Courts are under a constitutional obligation (including under Directive Principles) to provide and maintain such facilities?
iii. What remedial directions are appropriate to ensure accessibility, non-discrimination (including for transgender persons and persons with disabilities), and effective maintenance?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Petitioner submitted that Article 21’s protection of life includes the right to live with dignity and to conditions necessary for hygiene, health and privacy; lack of toilets in courts forces litigants and advocates to forego drinking water, defer natural calls causing health risks, and may deter vulnerable persons (women, transgender persons) from accessing justice. The petitioner relied on domestic precedents interpreting Article 21, the Transgender Act & Rules requiring washrooms and institutional facilities, and national accessibility norms to show statutory and policy foundations for mandating gender-sensitive, accessible toilets in judicial premises. Detailed recommendations (audits, budgetary transparency, modular retrofits, pad dispensers, creches and grievance redressal) were placed before the Court to demonstrate feasible remedial architecture.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondents (States/UTs/High Courts) accepted the need for separate and accessible facilities but highlighted practical constraints: budgetary limits, heritage building constraints, and administrative responsibility split between High Courts and State PWDs. Respondents proposed delegation of maintenance to professional agencies, phased retrofitting, use of alternative solutions (mobile/bio-toilets) and constitution of High Court committees to assess requirements and coordinate fund allocation. They urged balanced directions that respect architectural integrity while ensuring functionality.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Court concluded that toilets/washrooms/restrooms in court premises are essential to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 because they protect physical health, privacy and dignity prerequisites for meaningful access to justice. Drawing on precedents (e.g., Vincent Panikurlangara, Re: Amarnath Shrine, Common Cause, Consumer Education & Research Centre, Kedia Leather and National Legal Services Authority), the Court linked sanitation to environmental and public health obligations under Articles 47 and 48A and to non-discrimination duties owed to transgender persons under the Transgender Act and Rules.

After reviewing High Court returns showing systemic deficits old unusable toilets, lack of sanitary provisions, absence of tactile paths and inadequate PwD access the Court framed structured remedies:

(i) mandate construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD and transgender persons across all court premises and tribunals;

(ii) require High Courts to constitute a committee (Judge-chair, RG, Chief Secretary, PWD & Finance Secretaries, Bar representative) within six weeks to survey, plan and monitor implementation;

(iii) committee to prepare statistics of daily footfall, conduct needs survey, recommend interim mobile/bio toilets, plan signage and PwD features, preserve heritage integrity via modular solutions and professional audits;

(iv) States/UTs to allocate sufficient funds and consider outsourcing maintenance;

(v) ensure sanitary dispensers, hand-wash, operational plumbing, ramps, Braille signage and grievance systems;

(vi) status reports by High Courts and States/UTs within four months;

(vii) Registrar (Judicial) to circulate judgment to RGs and Chief Secretaries. The Court emphasized that failure to act would undermine equality, dignity and access to justice and that sanitation is not a budgetary convenience but a constitutional imperative.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio is that access to functioning, gender-sensitive and accessible toilet facilities in court/tribunal premises is a constitutionally protected element of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, reinforced by Directive Principles (Articles 47 & 48A), statutory protections for transgender persons and international human-rights instruments recognizing sanitation as essential to life and health. The Court reasoned that denial of sanitation facilities impairs equality, privacy and the capacity to pursue legal rights, thus warranting mandatory remedial directions and institutional mechanisms for implementation.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed by way of exemplar and guidance that heritage constraints must not excuse inaction; creative modular solutions, outsourcing, interim mobile/bio-toilets and technology (iJuris data uploads) can bridge gaps. Comparative practices (Singapore, UK, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia) were discussed as persuasive models for maintenance, mapping and inclusive design. The Court emphasised sensitisation (cleaning staff, attendants for PwD), child-friendly facilities in Family Courts and mother-friendly rooms for nursing advocates. These remarks, while not essential to the ratio, chart administrative best practices.

c. GUIDELINES

(i) High Courts & States/UTs to ensure separate toilets for males, females, PwD and transgender persons in all courts/tribunals.

(ii) High Court Committee (Judge-chair + RG + Chief Secretary + PWD & Finance Secretaries + Bar rep) constituted within six weeks.

(iii) Committee to prepare comprehensive plan: footfall statistics, survey of lacunae, demarcation, interim mobile/bio toilets, accessibility features (ramps, tactile paths, Braille signage), sanitary pad dispensers and disposal.

(iv) Preservation of heritage via modular retrofits and expert consultations.

(v) Mandatory cleaning schedules, outsourcing maintenance where efficient, dedicated maintenance funds and annual audits.

(vi) Grievance redressal & nodal officer in each premises.

(vii) Status reports by all High Courts and States/UTs within four months; circulation of judgment to R.Gs and Chief Secretaries.

These directions combine constitutional mandate with practicable implementation steps.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reframes court infrastructure as integral to constitutional guarantees: dignity, equality and effective access to justice. It translates abstract commitments under Article 21 and Part IV into concrete, enforceable administrative obligations with time-bound institutional architecture. The decision is notable for integrating disability and transgender rights (statutory and policy instruments) into practical design standards and for insisting on transparency in funding and maintenance.

Implementation will test cooperative federal administration particularly budgetary allocations, PWD coordination and High Courts’ supervisory role but the Court’s structured committee model, combined with interim remedies (mobile/bio toilets, outsourcing) and mandatory reporting, gives a realistic compliance pathway. Academically, the judgment supplements Article 21 jurisprudence by affirming that seemingly mundane civic amenities within judicial premises are constitutional goods; administratively, it pushes for systemic audits, inclusive design and accountability. The directions, if faithfully implemented, promise immediate relief to vulnerable court users and a durable improvement in the dignity and accessibility of judicial spaces.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, [1987] 2 SCR 468 : (1987) 2 SCC 165.

2. Re: Amarnath Shrine v. Union of India, [2012] 13 SCR 1093 : (2013) 3 SCC 247.

3. Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, [1999] 3 SCR 1279 : (1999) 6 SCC 667.

4. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, [1995] 1 SCR 626 : AIR 1995 SC 922.

5. State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 727 : (2003) 7 SCC 389.

6. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, [2014] 5 SCR 119 : (2014) 5 SCC 438.

7. Smita Kumari Rajgarhia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Order dt. 16.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.14517 of 2024.

b. Important Statutes / Rules Referred

1. Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 47, Article 48A.

2. Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019; Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 (Rule 10).

3. Harmonised Guidelines & Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 (Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs).