Through: Mr. Vakul Sharad Sharma, Advocate v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

1. The matter relates to the grievance of the petitioner for maintenance and upkeep of female washrooms/ toilets of Saket District Court Complex.

KUMAR KAURAV However, the scope of the petition was expanded by the Court vide its order dated 16.10.2024. The Court has also appointed Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate as a Court Commissioner for carrying out the inspection and submission of a report.

2. Ms. Nathrani has submitted the report with respect to all female washrooms of all Court Complexes. The said report was considered and, accordingly, certain directions were issued to Public Works Department (PWD) from time to time. Vide order dated 01.09.2025, the report submitted by the PWD has also been taken note of. In paragraph nos. 2 to 5, the following observations have been made.

3. It must be emphasised that the issue before this Court cannot be viewed as being one of routine maintenance alone. The state of washrooms in court Complexes bears directly upon the dignity, health and equality of the citizens of this Country. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees not merely an animal like existence but a life of dignity.

4. In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan,[1] the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether by affirmative action a Court can compel a statutory body to carry out its duty to the community by constructing sanitation facilities at great cost and on a time-bound basis. In the facts of the said case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, had issued directions to the Municipality to construct drain pipes with flow of water to wash filth and stop the stench caused in the locality. The Supreme Court, speaking through V.R. Krishna Iyer J., held that statutory authorities are under a binding obligation to abate insanitary conditions and cannot avoid that duty on grounds of financial or administrative limitation. Basic sanitation was treated not as charity but as a responsibility under the Constitution. Upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the following pertinent observations were made:

19. A strange plea was put forward by the Municipal Council before the High Court which was justly repelled viz. that the owners of houses had gone to that locality on their own choice with eyes open and, therefore, could not complain if human excreta was flowing, dirt was stinking, mosquitoes were multiplying and health was held hostage. A public body constituted for the principal statutory duty of ensuring sanitation and health cannot outrage the Court by such an ugly plea. Luckily, no such contention was advanced before us. The request for further time for implementation of the Magistrate's order was turned down by the High Court since no specific time-limit was accepted by the Municipality for fulfilment of the directions. A doleful statement about the financial difficulties of the Municipality and the assurance that construction of drains would be taken up as soon as possible had no meaning. The High Court observed: “Such assurances, it appears, are of no avail as unfortunately these proceedings for petty little things like clearing of dirty water, closing the pits and repairing of drains have taken more than seven years and if these seven years are not sufficient to do the needful, one could understand that by granting some more time it could not be done.” The High Court was also right in rejecting the Additional Sessions Judge's recommendation to quash the Magistrate's order on the impression that Section 133 CrPC did not provide for enforcement of civic rights. Wherever there is a public nuisance, the presence of Section 133 CrPC must be felt and any contrary opinion is contrary to the law. In short, we have no hesitation in upholding the High Court's view of the law and affirmation of the Magistrate's order.

20. Before us the major endeavour of the Municipal Council was to persuade us to be pragmatic and not to force impracticable orders on it since it had no wherewithal to execute the order. Of course, we agree that law is realistic and not idealistic and what cannot be performed under given circumstances cannot be prescribed as a norm to be carried out. From that angle it may well be that while upholding the order of the Magistrate, we may be inclined to tailor the direction to make it workable. But first things first and we cannot consent to a value judgment where people's health is a low priority. Nevertheless, we are willing to revise the order into a workable formula the implementation of which would be watch-dogged by the court. …

24. We are sure that the State Government will make available by way of loans or grants sufficient financial aid to the Ratlam Municipality to enable it to fulfil its obligations under this Order. The State will realise that Article 47 makes it a paramount principle of governance that steps are taken for the improvement of public health as amongst its primary duties”. The Municipality also will slim its budget on low priority items and elitist projects to use the savings on sanitation and public health. It is not our intention that the ward which has woken up to its rights alone need be afforded these elementary facilities. We expect all the wards to be benefited without litigation. The pressure of the judicial process, expensive and dilatory, is neither necessary nor desirable if responsible bodies are responsive to duties. Cappilletti holds good for India when he observes: [ Access to Justice—A World Survey, Vol. 1, ed. by M. Cappelletti and B. Garth, pp. 123-24] “Our judicial system has been aptly described as follows: Admirable though it may be, (it) is at once slow and costly. It is a finished product of great beauty, but entails an immense sacrifice of time, money and talent. This „beautiful‟ system is frequently a luxury, it tends to give a high quality of justice only when, for one reason or another, parties can surmount the substantial barriers which it erects to most people and to many types of claims.” Why drive common people to public interest action? Where directive principles have found statutory expression in Do's and Dont's the court will not sit idly by and allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. The law will relentlessly be enforced and the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice. The dynamics of the judicial process has a new “enforcement” dimension not merely through some of the provisions of the criminal procedure code (as here), but also through activated tort consciousness. The officers-incharge and even the elected representatives will have to face the penalty of the law if what the Constitution and follow up legislation direct them to do are defied or denied wrongfully. The wages of violation is punishment, corporate and personal.”

5. The presence of clean and functional toilet facilities, particularly for women, is inseparable from dignity and privacy. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration,[2] the Supreme Court reiterated that personal dignity and bodily integrity lie at the core of Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,[3] privacy was recognised as an intrinsic part of life and liberty. Access to safe and hygienic washrooms in public institutions, including Court complexes, directly implicates these guarantees.

6. The right to health, recognised as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India,[4] necessarily includes conditions that prevent avoidable disease and indignity. Sanitation is the threshold of public health. Court complexes are not merely buildings; rather, they are Constitutional spaces where citizens seek justice and where judicial officers, advocates and staff discharge public functions. The infrastructure of such spaces must reflect the minimum standards consistent with Constitutional values. The Court is also not unmindful that inadequate or unhygienic facilities disproportionately affect women and may operate as a subtle but real barrier to equal participation in the administration of justice. Equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution is not secured by formal declarations alone; it requires institutional arrangements that accommodate basic biological realities. Clean and accessible washrooms are, therefore, to be considered not as peripheral amenities but foundational requirements of a functional justice system.

7. The Court has been assured by the PWD that all necessary steps have been taken in furtherance of the order dated 01.09.2025; and further that the PWD will ensure that the female washrooms of all Court Complex remain clean and hygienic.

8. Recording the aforesaid assurance on behalf of the PWD, at this stage, the writ petition stands disposed of. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if so warranted by subsequent circumstances.