SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 114

J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Rajeeb Kalita – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR
For the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Mrinalini Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR Mr. Hemant Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Singh, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Ravi Kumar S, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Tathagata Dutta, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv. Mr. Kushal Dube, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR

JUDGMENT

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed before us.

2. This writ petition styled as “Public Interest Litigation” has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

    (i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing all the States and Union Territories to ensure that basic toilet facilities are made available in all Courts/Tribunals in the Country for men, women and handicapped persons including transgenders, and to provide and maintain urinals and similar conveniences at appropriate locations in every Court premises as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and

    (ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing all the States and Union Territories to construct public toilets and public conveniences in all the Courts/ Tribunals and the same should be identifiable and accessible by the advocates/ litigants/ court staff etc. for men and women (including transgender persons) and to provide amenities for persons with disabilities and maintain the same.

3. The Petitioner is a practicing Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Assam and practicing in the Courts in Assam, Nagaland, Mi

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top