INTRODUCTION
The relationship between fundamental rights and public infrastructure is something that often
gets overlooked in constitutional jurisprudence. Courts usually concentrate on broad concepts
like liberty and equality, but we seldom get to see a deep dive into the physical spaces that
support those rights. The recent case of Smita Kumari Rajgarhia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[W.P.(C) 14517/2024], a decision handed down by the Delhi High Court on February 25,
2026, represents a positive development in this ongoing discussion. This ruling emphasizes
the responsibility of the government and the public servants to ensure that public
infrastructure is not only sufficient but also equitable. This case creates an opportunity to
explore how deficiencies in infrastructure can affect the fundamental rights of individuals in
the society.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate at the District Court South, Saket, filed a writ petition
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, highlighting the deplorable and unhygienic
condition of the female washrooms and toilets at the Saket District Court Complex. The High
Court recognized that the alarming situation directly impacts the dignity, safety, and well-
being of women at the district court. To address this, the Court expanded the scope of the
petition on 16.10.2024. It appointed Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate, as a Court
Commissioner to carry out an inspection of the female washrooms and submit a formal
report. The report submitted by Ms. Nathrani, dated 4.12.2024, painted a distressing picture.
Based on the said report, directions were issued to the PWD from time to time. The PWD
provided the timeline for the competition of the renovation and construction project,
specifically citing September 30, 2025, for Dwarka Courts and March 31, 2026, for Saket
Courts.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
In light of the facts of the case, we can identify two significant issues addressed by the Delhi
High Court.
1. Whether the failure to maintain clean and functional sanitation facilities in court
complexes violates the fundamental right to dignity and health under Article 21 of the
Constitution?
2. Whether statutory authorities can avoid the obligation to provide basic sanitation on
the grounds of financial or administrative limitations?
RULE OF LAW
In adjudicating the current petition, the Delhi High Court relied on an expansive
interpretation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, supported by several
landmark precedents. The primary focus was on Article 21, emphasizing that a dignified life
as a human being is what we are entitled to in society, yet the current state of our courts
reflects otherwise. The unhygienic condition of Indian courts highlights the lack of action
taken by authorities under the guise of financial constraints. The state of the female
washrooms in the court complex directly affects the dignity, health, and equality of Indian
citizens. To hold the statutory body accountable for its duty to the community by constructing
sanitation facilities within a designated timeframe, the court referenced the case of Municipal
Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan 1 , where V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., held that “statutory authorities
are legally obligated to eliminate insanitary conditions and cannot avoid this responsibility
due to financial or administrative limitations”.
The court further emphasized that this issue goes beyond routine maintenance. By citing
Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India 2 , the court highlighted that privacy is an
essential part of personal liberty, and referred to Consumer Education and Research Centre v.
Union of India 3 to stress that the right to health includes access to hygienic surroundings. The
availability of clean and functional toilet facilities, especially for women, is integral to
dignity and privacy. Finally, drawing from Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration 4 ,
the Supreme Court reaffirmed that personal dignity and bodily integrity are central to Article
21 of the Constitution. Equality under Articles 14 and 15 is not merely assured by formal
declarations; it requires institutional arrangements that recognize basic biological realities.
Therefore, clean and accessible washrooms should be regarded not as optional amenities but
as fundamental requirements of a functional justice system.
HOLDING
The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the right to clean and functional sanitation
facilities is intrinsically connected to the rights of dignity, privacy, and health as enshrined in
Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The court stated that “court complexes are not
merely buildings; they are Constitutional spaces where citizens seek justice, and where
judicial officers, advocates, and staff carry out public functions.” Therefore, the
infrastructure within these spaces must meet minimum standards that align with
Constitutional values. In response to a petition regarding the state of toilets, the court decided
to dispose of the case based on the Public Works Department's (PWD) assurance to complete
the necessary work within the specified timelines. It also issued a standing direction that any
future grievances should first be addressed to the respective Principal District Judge for
administrative action against the PWD or the Bar Associations. The court acknowledged the
PWD’s commitment to maintaining hygiene and granted the petitioner the option to file a
new petition if the situation does not improve.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING SANITATION
The judgment in Smita Kumari Rajgarhia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi clarifies the legal
landscape regarding the "Right to Sanitation," shifting it from a discretionary municipal
service to a mandatory constitutional obligation. The case outlines a clear hierarchy of
responsibility, ensuring that accountability is not lost in bureaucratic layers. The primary
responsibility is laid down on the state and statutory bodies, that is, the Public Works
Department (PWD) and the Government of NCT of Delhi, in this case, by relying on the
principle established in the Ratlam Municipality case. The reason of “paucity of funds” or
“administrative delays” cannot be taken as an excuse for avoiding its obligations.
A unique impact of this case is the Court’s acknowledgment of its own responsibility as the
guardian of the Constitution. The case opened the eyes of the court itself to see the
breakdown of the judicial system in Indian society. The judgment reflects a systemic failure
of institutions entrusted with safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly in ensuring the
dignity and safety of women.” As the court viewed, the Judicial Complexes are
“Constitutional Spaces”, and it is the environment where the justice dispensed reflects the
dignity of the citizens.
Further, the court delegated the administrative oversight to the Principal District Judges. This
ensures that the responsibility for upkeep is localized and that the "head of the office" is
accountable for the infrastructure under their watch. The judgment subtly points toward the
role of Bar Associations as well. While the PWD builds and repairs, the Court directed that
administrative actions regarding grievances can involve the Bar Associations. This implies a
shared responsibility for maintaining the civic culture of these spaces once they are
renovated.
IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT
The impact of this judgment creates a profound "ripple effect" across Indian society,
extending far beyond the confines of the Dwarka and Saket courts to signal a major legal shift
in three key areas. Firstly, it establishes a significant Gender Impact by transitioning the right
to sanitation from a general ideology to a substantive right rooted in Articles 14 and 15. By
mandating infrastructure that accounts for biological realities, the Court prevents the "indirect
discrimination" that effectively excludes women from professional spaces. Secondly, it
advances Infrastructure Jurisprudence by aligning with precedents like Umri Pooph
Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v M.P. Road Development Corporation 5 , reinforcing that
safe and hygienic infrastructure is an integral component of the Right to Life under Article
21. Finally, the ruling marks the Death of the Financial Alibi, by reinforcing the Ratlam
principle, it ensures that paucity of funds is never a valid excuse for compromising human
dignity. This sets a new standard for priority spending, recognizing that basic sanitation is the
threshold of public health.
CONCLUSION
The ruling in Smita Kumari Rajgarhia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi provides a judicial remedy to
the systemic neglect of vital infrastructure within the legal ecosystem. By shifting the debate
of sanitation from a matter of administrative discretion to a Constitutional mandate, the Delhi
High Court has succeeded in bridging the gap between abstract rights and their fulfillment.
The ruling effectively eliminates the financial alibi traditionally used by state agencies,
establishing that the dignity of the individual, particularly the biological and professional
dignity of women, cannot be held hostage by financial constraints. Ultimately, this case
establishes that a functional justice system is not merely defined by the quality of its legal
reasoning, but by the integrity of the Constitutional spaces it inhabits. It stands as a testament
to the fact that the Rule of Law must first be visible in the very corridors where it is
administered.
1 (1980) 4 SCC 162.
2 (2017) 10 SCC 1.
3 (1995) 3 SCC 42.
4 (2009) 9 SCC 1.
5 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 752
Author is student of 8th Sem BBA LLB (A)
