Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India
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.