In the landmark judgment of Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed a pressing issue often overlooked in discussions about justice and human rights: the availability of basic toilet facilities in courts across the country.
The case stemmed from a petition filed by an advocate, Rajeeb Kalita, who highlighted the lack of such essential amenities in numerous courts.
The petition underscored a crucial point: the absence of clean and hygienic toilets directly infringes upon the right to live with dignity, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Summary of Petitioner’s Arguments in Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India and Ors.
The petitioner, Rajeeb Kalita, brought forward arguments advocating for the necessity and right to proper sanitation facilities in all courts and tribunals across India. The petitioner’s point of view is summarized as follows:
- The Right to Basic Toilet Facilities: The petitioner argued that the scope of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to live with dignity and necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and health, extends to the provision of basic toilet facilities.
- Public Health and Sanitation: The petitioner highlighted that the Constitution of India, under Article 47, mandates the State to improve public health and raise the standard of living. Additionally, Article 48A mandates the State to protect and improve the environment, which includes sanitation.
- Government Initiatives and International Standards: The petitioner pointed out that the Government of India’s ‘Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM)’ has set guidelines for constructing public toilets. Furthermore, the World Health Organization (WHO) considers the health of human beings as an essential asset, emphasizing the importance of sanitation facilities.
- Need for Toilets in Court Premises: The petitioner stressed that clean and hygienic toilets should be provided not only in public places such as markets, train stations, and tourist places but also in court complexes and premises. The petitioner argued that court premises, where lawyers, litigants, and staff members work in large numbers, should have adequate toilet facilities to ensure the right conferred by Article 21 is meaningful.
Supreme Court’s Observation in Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India and Ors.
The Hon’ble Court’s observations were centered on the recognition of sanitation as a basic human right and its importance in upholding the dignity of all individuals involved in court proceedings. The Court’s observations can be summarized as follows:
- Sanitation as a Fundamental Right: The Court observed that access to proper sanitation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right extends to ensuring a safe and hygienic environment for all individuals, including those involved in court proceedings.
- State’s Duty to Ensure Public Health: The Court emphasized the State’s duty under Part IV of the Constitution to ensure a healthy environment and continuously strive to improve public health. This duty includes the provision of adequate sanitation facilities in public spaces, including court premises.
- Access to Justice and Basic Amenities: The Court observed that access to justice includes creating a pleasant and humane atmosphere for all stakeholders involved in dispensing justice. The Court stressed that litigants should not be discouraged from exercising their legal rights due to the lack of basic amenities such as proper washroom facilities.
- District Courts and Washroom Facilities: The Court expressed deep concern over instances where judges, particularly in rural areas, still lack access to proper washroom facilities. The Court emphasized that this failure violates the rights of those affected and tarnished the reputation of the judicial system.
- Swift Action to Address the Issue: The Court urged all High Courts to take prompt and effective action to address the lack of adequate washroom facilities in court premises. The Court stressed the importance of providing accessible washroom facilities for judges, litigants, lawyers, and staff, emphasizing that it is not just a matter of convenience but a matter of basic rights and human dignity.
Key Case Laws discussed by Supreme Court in Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India and Ors.
In the judgment of Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India, the Court discussed several key case laws to emphasize the importance of sanitation and public health within the context of the right to life and human dignity. Some of the notable case laws mentioned include:
- Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India
In this case, the Court discussed the concept of a healthy body being the foundation for all human activities. It was observed that in a welfare state, it is the obligation of the State to ensure conditions that are favorable to good health. The Court emphasized that the right to live with human dignity, as interpreted in the Francis Mullin case, includes the protection of the health and strength of workers, children’s opportunities, and facilities for their development in a healthy manner.
- In Re. Amarnath Shrine v. Union of India
This case highlighted the obligation of the Centre, State, and Shrine Board to protect and improve the environment under Article 48-A of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a better standard of living and hygienic conditions in the workplace.
- Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India
The Court in this case reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 extends beyond mere survival and includes the right to live with human dignity. This encompasses basic necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing oneself freely.
- Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India
This case highlighted the concept of human dignity and the State’s moral responsibility to ensure fundamental human rights. The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to good health, which is essential for a workman to earn his livelihood and live with dignity and equality.
- State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.
The Court held that a clean and hygienic environment is essential for human dignity and a healthy life. It reasoned that environmental and ecological pollution directly violates the right to life under Article 21, as the absence of a healthy environment compromises the right to live with dignity.
- National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India
This case addressed the absence of separate toilets for transgender individuals, noting that this lack of facilities compels them to use male toilets, where they are at risk of sexual assault and harassment. The Court stressed that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity violates the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.
These case laws collectively underscore the Court’s recognition of the right to sanitation as an integral part of the right to life and human dignity. The Court’s discussion of these cases highlights the importance of providing adequate sanitation facilities in public spaces, including courts, to ensure a safe, hygienic, and dignified environment for all.
Examples of Other Nations and their Contributions discussed by the Supreme Court in Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India and Ors.
In the judgment of Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India, the Court included a comprehensive global overview of sanitation practices and initiatives in different countries. This overview highlighted the diverse approaches and innovative solutions adopted globally to address the issue of public sanitation.
The Court noted the ‘Toilet for All’ initiative in Germany, also known as the ‘Changing Places’ program, which aims to ensure accessibility and dignity for people with severe disabilities by incorporating features like height-adjustable changing benches and ceiling hoists in public restrooms.
The Court also discussed the ‘Pop-Up Winnipeg Public Toilet’ initiative in Canada, which combined community service, innovative design, and social equity to create inclusive and accessible public restrooms.
The overview also included Japan’s efforts in developing all-gender universal toilets that accommodate diverse needs, including those of people with disabilities, the elderly, and individuals with dementia.
The Court highlighted Singapore’s National Environment Agency’s (NEA) efforts in maintaining a clean environment, particularly through promoting clean and well-maintained public restrooms.
The United Kingdom’s emphasis on accessible and well-maintained public toilets was also noted, including the British Toilet Association’s (BTA) campaigns for better restroom standards.
The Court also discussed Australia’s National Toilet Map, which provides detailed information on over 16,000 publicly accessible toilets across the country, including those with disability access.
This global overview served to illustrate the importance that other countries place on the provision of adequate public sanitation facilities and highlighted innovative approaches that could potentially be adopted in India to improve the existing situation.
Supreme Court’s Directives in Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India and Ors.
The Court, acknowledging the serious nature of the situation and the urgent need to address the lack of adequate and inclusive restroom facilities within the court system, issued a series of comprehensive directives to all High Courts. These directives mandated the following actions:
- Construction and Availability of Separate Toilet Facilities: All court premises and tribunals must construct and maintain separate toilet facilities for men, women, persons with disabilities (PwD), and transgender individuals. This ensures that all individuals, regardless of gender identity or disability status, have access to safe and appropriate restroom facilities.
- Clear Identification and Accessibility: These facilities must be clearly identifiable through appropriate signage and universally accessible to all users, including judges, advocates, litigants, and court staff. This ensures that everyone can easily locate and use the facilities without confusion or difficulty.
- Formation of Oversight Committees: Each High Court is required to form a committee specifically tasked with overseeing the implementation of these directives. The committee will monitor progress, address any challenges, and ensure that the mandated changes are carried out effectively and in a timely manner.
These directives represent a significant step towards ensuring that all individuals within the court system are treated with dignity and respect, and that their basic needs, including access to appropriate restroom facilities, are met.
The above committee is tasked with conducting a thorough survey to assess the availability and condition of existing facilities, identify any shortcomings, and ensure that new facilities are constructed and maintained according to the needs of all individuals.
The Court, in Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India, emphasized that the committees should consider factors such as the average number of people visiting the courts daily and the specific needs of different individuals, including PwD and transgender persons, to ensure inclusivity and accessibility.
The judgment is significant for several reasons.
Firstly, it recognizes the fundamental right to sanitation as an integral component of the right to life and personal liberty.
Secondly, it underscores the responsibility of the state to ensure the creation of an environment that respects the dignity of all individuals involved in court proceedings, including lawyers, litigants, and court staff.
By addressing the often-neglected issue of sanitation in courts, the Supreme Court’s judgment sets a precedent for recognizing and upholding the basic rights of all individuals, regardless of their role in the justice system. It is a landmark decision that emphasizes the importance of providing accessible and hygienic sanitation facilities in all public spaces, particularly in places central to the functioning of a just and equitable society.
Conclusion and My View
The judgment in the case of Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India has been lauded for its acknowledgement of the critical role that sanitation plays in upholding human dignity and ensuring access to justice. The Court’s firm stance on the provision of clean and accessible toilet facilities within all court premises marks a substantial stride towards fostering a more inclusive and respectful environment for everyone involved in the justice system. This includes not only judges and lawyers but also witnesses, litigants, and court staff.
The judgment is particularly noteworthy for its emphasis on the State’s responsibility to ensure public health and its recognition of the right to sanitation as a fundamental right. This recognition aligns with international human rights standards and underscores the indivisibility of human rights, where the right to sanitation is inextricably linked to the right to life, health, and dignity.
The Court’s directives for the construction and maintenance of separate toilet facilities for men, women, transgender individuals, and persons with disabilities further demonstrate a commitment to inclusivity and equality within the justice system. By addressing the diverse needs of different groups, the Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring that everyone can participate in the justice system without facing discrimination or exclusion.
Furthermore, the Court’s establishment of committees in each High Court to oversee the implementation of these directives ensures that the issue of sanitation will be addressed in a comprehensive and systematic manner. The judgment’s focus on providing accessible and hygienic sanitation facilities in all public spaces, particularly in courts, is a positive step toward creating a more just and equitable society.
In conclusion, the judgment in Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India is a landmark decision that recognizes the importance of sanitation in upholding human dignity and ensuring access to justice. The Court’s comprehensive directives and its focus on inclusivity and accessibility are commendable. This judgment is a positive step toward creating a more just and equitable society for all.
This article is based on the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeeb Kalita, delivered on January 15, 2025, in Writ Petition (C) No. 538 of 2023.