LexRAJEEB KALITA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 27 : 2025 INSC 75 Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 538 of 2023) 15 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Writ petition filed seeking issuance of Writ directing the States and Union Territories to ensure basic toilet facilities in Courts/ Tribunals in the country for all including, persons with disabilities and transgender persons. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to life – Access to proper sanitation – Directive Principles of State Policy – Articles 47, 48A – Lack of basic toilet and sanitation facilities within the Court premises/Tribunals for the judges, litigants, advocates and staff – Writ petition sought direction to the States and UTs to ensure adequate washroom facilities in various judicial premises across the country for men, women and handicapped persons including transgenders: Held: Toilets/washrooms/restrooms are not merely a matter of convenience, but a basic necessity which is a facet of basic human rights and dignity – Access to proper sanitation is a fundamental right u/Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty which in turn inherently includes ensuring a safe and hygienic environment for all individuals – Right to life encompasses within it the right to healthy and hygienic life and the right to live with dignity – Creation of adequate public toilets also protects the privacy and removes the threat to ladies and transgender persons – Availability of access to public toilet is an important duty of the States/UTs under the Directive Principles – There is a duty on every State/UT under Part IV of the Constitution to ensure a healthy environment and to continuously strive to improve the public health – Access to justice includes the creation of a * Author 28 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports pleasant and humanly atmosphere for all the stake holders in the dispensation of justice – District Courts are in the worst and most deplorable conditions failing to meet even basic hygiene standards and even judges, particularly, in rural areas, still lack access to proper washroom facilities – Toilets in several High Courts are inadequate with non-functional hand dryers, handwash, toilet paper, and napkins, etc. – Failure to provide adequate washroom facilities reflects a deeper flaw in the justice system – Absence of adequate washroom facilities undermines equality and poses a barrier to the fair administration of justice – It is the duty of the Govt. and local authorities to provide basic toilet and sanitation facilities within the Court premises and ensure that they are constructed, maintained and kept in a hygienic condition – Directions issued to States, UTs and High Courts for the construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all Court premises and Tribunals across the Country – High Courts to constitute the Committee, as directed – State Governments/ UTs to allocate sufficient funds for construction, maintenance and cleanliness of the toilet facilities within the court premises, which shall be periodically reviewed in consultation with the Committee constituted by the High Courts – Status report to be filed by all the High Courts and the States/UTs within four months. [Paras 8.24, 9.2.1, 10-10.2, 11] Need for separate toilets for men, women and transgender persons – Various Acts/International Laws/Reports/Guidelines enumerated – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 – Harmonised Guidelines & Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs; The State of the Judiciary: A Report on Infrastructure, Budgeting, Human Resources, and ICT, by the Centre for Research & Planning, Supreme Court of India; The Supreme Court Accessibility Committee Report (October, 2023) – Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 – International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 – Discussed. Case Law Cited Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India [1987] 2 SCR 468 : (1987) 2 SCC 165; Re. Amarnath Shrine v. Union of India [2025] 2 S.C.R. 29 Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. [2012] 13 SCR 1093 : (2013) 3 SCC 247; Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [1999] 3 SCR 1279 : (1999) 6 SCC 667; Consumer Education a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.