Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 75Decided 15 Jan 2025
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 538 of 2023
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

An advocate practising in Assam and neighbouring states filed a public interest litigation seeking directions to all States and Union Territories to provide basic, hygienic, and accessible toilet facilities (for men, women, persons with disabilities, and transgender persons) in every court and tribunal complex in the country, arguing this was part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Supreme Court had earlier directed all High Courts to file affidavits detailing the toilet facilities available in their court complexes, and those responses revealed widespread deficiencies: crumbling old toilets, lack of separate facilities for transgender persons, no sanitary napkin dispensers, inaccessible facilities for persons with disabilities, and inadequate funding for maintenance.

Decision Breakdown

The Court surveyed Indian constitutional provisions, international human rights instruments, and comparative practices from countries like Singapore, the UK, Australia, Germany, Canada and Japan, and held that access to clean, functional, and safe toilets in court premises is not a mere convenience but a facet of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21. It issued a detailed set of directions: High Courts and State/UT Governments must ensure separate toilets for men, women, persons with disabilities, and transgender persons in all court premises; each High Court must set up a committee headed by a nominated judge to survey needs, plan construction, ensure maintenance, install signage and sanitary dispensers, and create grievance-redressal mechanisms; and States/UTs must allocate dedicated funding, with compliance status reports due within four months.

Lesson Learnt

The right to dignity under Article 21 extends to seemingly mundane infrastructure like public toilets. Courts can and will issue binding, detailed implementation directions to government bodies to fix systemic gaps in basic amenities, not just declare abstract rights.

Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware