Right to Sanitation vs. Private Property: Lawyers' Forum Challenges Petrol Pump Toilet Ban in Kerala High Court

KOCHI, KERALA – A significant legal battle is unfolding in the Kerala High Court, pitting the fundamental right to sanitation against the property rights of private petrol pump owners. The All India Lawyers' Forum for Civil Liberties (AILF) has intervened in an ongoing case, arguing that an interim court order restricting public access to toilets at fuel stations is a violation of basic human rights and constitutional guarantees.

The intervention challenges an interim order in the case of Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society V State of Kerala (WP(C) 9329/2025), which limited the use of washrooms at privately-owned petrol pumps to customers and employees only. The AILF contends that this restriction has a "direct and adverse impact" on the general public and seeks to have the order overturned.

The case brings to the forefront a critical public interest question: To what extent can private establishments that serve a quasi-public function be mandated to provide essential amenities like toilets to everyone, regardless of their status as a customer?

The Core of the AILF's Challenge: A Violation of Fundamental Rights

The AILF's impleadment application is grounded in a robust constitutional framework, primarily invoking Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Forum argues that denying or restricting access to toilets infringes upon the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass the right to live with human dignity.

"The interim order disproportionately affects the vulnerable groups of society as it restricts the use of toilets of privately owned petrol pumps which is unreasonable and arbitrary creating an artificial difference without any intelligible differentia as well as a rational nexus,” the petition states.

The AILF asserts that toilets are not a mere convenience but a "basic human necessity." The lack of accessible public washrooms, particularly along highways and in urban areas, disproportionately harms women, children, transgender individuals, the elderly, persons with disabilities, commercial drivers, daily wage workers, and the homeless.

Citing landmark judgments like Bandhua Mukthi Morcha v. Union of India and Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi , the Forum reminds the Court that Article 21 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure conditions that allow individuals to live with dignity. This obligation, they argue, extends to guaranteeing access to sanitation, even when facilities are operated by private entities.

Health, Safety, and Environmental Ramifications

The legal challenge extends beyond constitutional principles to address tangible public health and safety concerns. The AILF highlights that the unavailability of clean and safe toilets can lead to serious health issues, particularly for women, who may delay urination or restrict their water intake, increasing the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and other urological problems.

Safety is another major pillar of the argument. The petition underscores the vulnerability of individuals, especially women, who may be exposed to harassment or assault in the absence of secure sanitation options, particularly at night or in remote locations. “The availability of clean, safe, and accessible washrooms is especially crucial for women, who are at heightened risk of sexual harassment and assault in the absence of secure sanitation option,” the plea adds.

Furthermore, the AILF frames the restriction as an environmental issue. By limiting access to existing facilities, the court's interim order could inadvertently encourage open defecation and urination. This would not only create public health hazards but also contribute to environmental pollution, running contrary to the precautionary principle in environmental law and the State's duties under Articles 47 (Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health) and 48A (Protection and improvement of environment) of the Constitution.

Aligning with National Policy and International Commitments

The petition strategically aligns its arguments with national policy objectives and international human rights law. It points out that restricting toilet access directly undermines the goals of the Swachh Bharat Mission, the central government's flagship program launched in 2014 to eliminate open defecation and ensure universal sanitation coverage. The AILF emphasizes that along highways, where public toilets are often scarce, petrol pump washrooms are a critical component of the national sanitation infrastructure.

On the international front, the AILF references the 2010 United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution which explicitly recognizes safe drinking water and sanitation as human rights integral to life, health, and dignity. The resolution places the primary responsibility on States to ensure this access for all, a duty that is not absolved when services are provided by private operators.

The Broader Legal Context

The original writ petition was filed by the Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society, challenging attempts by the State Government and local bodies to mandate that petrol pump toilets be made available to the general public. In response, oil marketing companies like IOCL, HPCL, and BPCL have informed the court that their dealership agreements often include provisions under the "Marketing Discipline Guidelines" which require fuel stations to provide clean toilet facilities for public use.

Justice C.S. Dias, presiding over the matter, has directed these companies to submit detailed counter-affidavits clarifying the contractual obligations of their dealers regarding public toilet access. This adds another layer to the case, suggesting that the obligation may stem not only from constitutional mandates but also from pre-existing commercial agreements.

The impleadment by the AILF ensures that the perspective of the general public and vulnerable communities is robustly represented. The Forum aims to ensure that the final judgment is guided by constitutional mandates and human rights principles, rather than being limited to a dispute between private traders and government bodies. The case now involves the State of Kerala, the Union Government, municipal bodies, petroleum companies, and, with the AILF's intervention, a voice for civil liberties. The High Court's ultimate decision will have far-reaching implications for public sanitation policy and the interpretation of fundamental rights in the context of privately-provided public services.