$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14517/2024 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

SMITA KUMARI RAJGARHIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vakul Sharad Sharma, Advocate.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate (Court Commissioner).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

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

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.

“2. It is assured by the concerned Executive Engineer (PWD), Mr. V.K. Singh, who has joined the proceedings virtually that the aforesaid work for renovation/ construction of toilet blocks is being expedited, and all attempts are being made to complete the work as early as possible. He submits that the work in respect of toilet blocks in Court Building (A and B wings) at the District Court, Dwarka shall be completed by 30.09.2025.

3. He further submits that the work of toilet in the District Court Complex, Saket is also being expedited and is expected to be completed by

31.03.2026.

4. The PWD is also directed to ensure upkeep and maintenance of the existing toilets in the aforesaid court complexes.

5. Let an updated status report be filed within a period of eight weeksfrom today. Let a status report be also filed as regards the work relating to renovation/ construction of toilets in the other court complexes as well. Let the same also be filed within a period of eight weeks from today. The concerned Bar Association is also directed to file a status report in terms of paragraph no. 5 of the order dated 10.02.2025, within a period of eight weeks from today.”

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,, (1980) 4 SCC 162. 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:

“2. The circumstances of the case are typical and overflow the particular municipality and the solutions to the key questions emerging from the matrix of facts are capable of universal application, especially in the Third World humanscape of silent subjection of groups of people to squalor and of callous public bodies habit