High Courts and States Must Provide Separate, Accessible Court Toilets for All Genders and PwD, Supreme Court Directs

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a public interest writ petition under Article 32 filed by an advocate challenging the lack of basic toilet and sanitation facilities across court and tribunal premises and seeking a writ of mandamus directing States and Union Territories to provide separate, identifiable and accessible toilets for men, women, transgender persons and persons with disabilities.

The Court allowed the petition and issued comprehensive directions to High Courts, State Governments and Union Territories to ensure construction, maintenance and accessibility of separate toilet facilities in all court premises. The judges emphasized that sanitation in courts was not a matter of mere convenience but an aspect of the right to life and human dignity. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In our opinion, toilets / washrooms / restrooms are not merely a matter of convenience, but a basic necessity which is a facet of human rights. Access to proper sanitation is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution... It is the duty of the Government 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 for men, women, PwD, and transgender persons.” The Court directed each High Court to constitute, within six weeks, a committee headed by a judge nominated by the Chief Justice and including senior administrative officers and a Bar representative to survey needs, prepare implementation plans, demarcate existing washrooms, propose interim measures (including mobile and bio-toilets), ensure signage and functional amenities, nominate nodal officers, establish complaint redressal, and create a transparent fund for construction and maintenance. The Court ordered a status report from all High Courts and States/UTs within four months and listed the matter for compliance.

Background

The petition arose from widespread grievances about inadequate, unhygienic and inaccessible toilet facilities in High Court and subordinate court complexes. The petitioner argued that Article 21 read with Directive Principles (Articles 47 and 48A) and relevant statutes and rules, including the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its Rules, mandated inclusive sanitation facilities. The Court had earlier on 8 May 2023 directed all High Courts to file tabular affidavits on availability, maintenance, separate facilities for litigants, lawyers and judicial officers, and provision for sanitary napkin dispensers; High Courts filed extensive responses comprising 777 pages.

The affidavits revealed patchy compliance: several High Courts lacked separate toilets for transgender persons, many district courts suffered “deplorable” conditions, fittings remained non-functional, water supply was inadequate, and there was no uniform data on funds or timelines for construction. The judgment reproduced international guidelines and domestic precedents stressing hygiene and dignity, including the observation in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India that “access to public toilets is also a serious problem they face quite often,” and prior authorities recognising that the right to life “means something more than mere survival” and includes hygienic conditions. The Court recorded stakeholder suggestions (outsourcing maintenance, sanitary dispensers, child‑friendly and mother‑friendly facilities, graded certification) and accepted the need for heritage-sensitive retrofitting in historic court buildings.

The writ petition was disposed of with detailed directions. The Court mandated separate, identifiable and accessible washrooms for males, females, transgender persons and persons with disabilities in all court and tribunal premises; required functional amenities (water, electricity, soap, napkins, operational flushes, ramps and grab bars); advised interim mobile or bio‑toilets where necessary; ordered mandatory cleaning schedules, outsourcing of maintenance if needed, nodal officers for monitoring, and periodic inspection and reporting; and directed High Courts and States/UTs to allocate and transparently report dedicated funds. The matter was listed after four months to review compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 538 of 2023 Case Title: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Rajeeb Kalita (Petitioner — Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Additional Solicitor General of India (for Union of India)