Rajeeb Katalia Versus Union of India & Others (2025 SCC Online SC 81)

Writ petition (C) No. 538 of 2023 Decided on January 15, 2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwal and Justice R. Mahadevan

Facts

Rajeeb Kalita, a lawyer from Northeast India, filed this petition as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. He asked the Supreme Court to order every State and Union Territory to build, maintain, and actually keep clean toilets in all courts and tribunals. He didn’t just talk about numbers he stressed how everyone deserves access to clean washrooms: men, women, transgender people, and those with disabilities. For him, this wasn’t just about comfort. He argued that not having basic toilets in courts is a flat-out denial of dignity, a right protected under Article 21.

He backed this up by pointing to the Swachh Bharat Mission, international standards, and WHO guidelines, all saying the same thing sanitation is a basic human right. He said the lack of toilets drags down access to justice. It’s not just lawyers who suffer, but litigants and court staff too. People end up feeling humiliated and uncomfortable. So, the Supreme Court stepped in with some interim orders. They told every High Court to file affidavits about the state of toilets and how well they’re maintained. What came back wasn’t pretty there were huge gaps, and the overall situation in many court complexes was downright bad.

The High Courts’ reports painted a grim picture. Old, broken toilets stayed locked up, maintenance funds barely existed, fixtures didn’t work, and facilities for women and transgender people were almost an afterthought. District courts were in a worse spot some didn’t even have basic amenities for judges or lawyers. The affidavits also pointed out problems beyond toilets: not enough water, no sanitary napkin dispensers, nothing for kids or mothers, and hardly any arrangements for people with disabilities. The whole system, it seemed, was ignoring some fundamental needs.

Issues

The Supreme Court boiled the case down to a few main questions:

• Does the right to sanitation and access to toilets in court buildings count as part of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• What exactly does the State have to do, under the Directive Principles (Articles 47, 48A) and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, to make sure everyone especially marginalized groups have some decent sanitation.
• Are the High Courts and State Governments actually following the rules and court orders about providing and looking after basic courtroom facilities.
• And, when courts don’t provide proper sanitation, does that amount to discrimination especially against women, transgender people, and people with disabilities breaking what the law and the Constitution promise them.

 Law

The Court based its decision on a few key things:

• First, the Constitution of India. Article 21 isn’t just about being alive it’s about living with dignity, which covers basics like clean sanitation. Then there’s Article 47 and 48A, which push the government to improve public health and protect the environment.
• The judges also pointed to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its rules from 2020. These laws demand equal treatment and proper facilities for everyone, including accessible washrooms.
• On top of that, the Court looked at international standards. Documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize sanitation as a real part of the right to health and dignity. The UN has backed this idea too.
• They didn’t stop there. The Court brought up a series of Supreme Court rulings that shape what it means to live with dignity in India cases like Francis Coralie Mullin, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Common Cause, and Consumer Education and Research Centre. They also cited the NALSA v. Union of India decision, which made it clear that transgender people have a right to access public toilets. Plus, several High Courts have ruled that safe, clean, and accessible toilets are a right, especially for women and marginalized groups.

Petitioner’s Argument

Living with dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21, really means having access to safe, clean, and usable toilets.

When courts don’t have basic toilets, it causes real trouble especially for women, transgender, and disabled people. Advocates, litigants, and staff all feel the impact, but the burden falls hardest on those already facing barriers.

The State has a clear duty under the Constitution (Articles 47 and 48A) and the law to protect public health and make sure everyone gets equal, inclusive facilities in public spaces.

We already have clear rules like the Harmonised Guidelines for Universal Accessibility from 2021 and global commitments that treat access to toilets as a human right.

But walk into most district courts and the reality is grim. Affidavits show there’s barely any funding, toilets aren’t maintained, many don’t even work, and the whole setup often shuts out people from marginalized groups.

Respondent’s Argument

The Union pushed for separate toilets for all genders and people with disabilities in court complexes, sending out new guidelines to make it happen. Everyone agreed this needs to get done, but they didn’t gloss over the problems. There’s not always enough money or space, and getting the High Courts, State Governments, and PWD Departments on the same page can be tricky.

In some older or cramped buildings, people suggested thinking outside the box using modular toilets or retrofitting existing spaces could work.

They also made it clear: you need proper committees and nodal officers to run things, dedicated funds for maintenance, and probably bring in professional agencies to keep the toilets clean. Otherwise, nothing really changes for the long haul.

Analysis

The Supreme Court took a close look at the issue, starting with how it has expanded Article 21 in its own past rulings. It made it clear the right to life isn’t just about being alive it’s about living with dignity, good health, and basic comforts. Ignoring proper sanitation in court buildings flies in the face of these constitutional values.

The Court went further. It said that not having proper toilets and washrooms in courts isn’t just inconvenient it denies people real equality. This lacks hits women, transgender people, and disabled persons the hardest. In short, its discrimination, and it goes against Article 14 and clear legal duties.

When courts don’t have working toilets, people are less likely to show up, especially for long hearings. That blocks access to justice. It also makes life harder for lawyers and court staff, which chips away at the credibility of the whole legal system.

The Court didn’t just look at India. It pointed to places like Singapore, the UK, and Australia to show that decent sanitation is a basic human right and essential for public institutions to work properly.

Real-world problems came up in affidavits broken toilets, bad maintenance, confusing or missing signs, not enough separate facilities, tight budgets, and no real way to complain or hold anyone responsible.

The Court called for a solid plan regular audits, proper funding, professional management, gender-neutral and accessible toilets, child-friendly facilities, and real systems for complaints and follow-up in every court complex.

And the Court didn’t mince words money problems aren’t an excuse. Courts have a constitutional duty to make sure everyone can really access justice, which means providing the basic infrastructure people need to actually use the courts, no matter who they are.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court just made a huge statement: everyone deserves proper, dignified, and accessible toilets in every court across India. It’s not some luxury it’s a basic right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judges called out how the lack of these facilities hits vulnerable groups hardest, and that’s discrimination, plain and simple. So, they laid down some clear, no-nonsense orders.

Every High Court and State or Union Territory has to make sure, within set deadlines, that there are separate and accessible washrooms for men, women, transgender people, and persons with disabilities in all courts and tribunals. No exceptions. Each High Court also needs to create a committee to check out the current setup, suggest fixes, secure enough funds, and sign solid maintenance contracts ideally with professionals who know what they’re doing.

There’s more every court washroom must have sanitary napkin dispensers, child-friendly spaces, nursing rooms for mothers, clear signs, and designs that work for everyone. The judges also demanded yearly reviews of sanitation funding, with compliance reports out in the open for all to see.

They didn’t stop there. The Court pushed for quick solutions to complaints, regular independent audits, upgrades for older buildings, more eco-friendly practices, and for courts to look at what’s working in other countries.

In the end, this judgment tells the judiciary to practice what it preaches stand up for dignity and equality, not just in theory, but in the courthouses themselves. These directions should make the whole court experience better for everyone, whether you’re a litigant, a lawyer, a judge, or part of the staff. It’s a big step toward a more humane and fair justice system in India.