Bombay High Court: While considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni* and Aarti Sathe, JJ., observed that residents of a slum spread over 1,83,000 sq. metres with a population exceeding 4,000 were entitled to adequate sanitation facilities. The Court emphasised that the pendency of a slum rehabilitation scheme could not justify neglect of basic amenities and held that toilet facilities constitute a basic human right under Article 21 of the Constitution, directing the municipal corporation to construct additional toilets commensurate with the population and to ensure their proper maintenance. The ruling reinforced that the right to sanitation and access to toilets forms part of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21.
Background:
The matter arose from a writ petition filed to highlight the deplorable condition of sanitation facilities in Buddha Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai. The slum, spread over approximately 1,83,000 sq. metres of municipal land, houses more than 4,000 residents along with commercial structures. Petitioners pointed out that only 60 toilet seats existed, many of which were dilapidated, unhygienic, and grossly insufficient for the population.
It was submitted that a work order dated 09-07-2019 had been issued under the Slum Sanitation Programme, but no effective repair or maintenance was undertaken. Petitioners contended that the lack of sanitation facilities violated the fundamental rights of the residents and amounted to dereliction of duty by the Municipal Corporation and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
The petitioners further argued that demolition or relocation of toilets would deprive residents of basic sanitary needs. They stressed that the municipal authorities had failed to discharge their obligations under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’), despite repeated representations and letters addressed to the authorities seeking urgent intervention.
On the other hand, the municipal corporation submitted that part of the land was under redevelopment pursuant to a Letter of Intent dated 13-10-2020, covering only 60 slum dwellers. It was contended that since a slum rehabilitation scheme was pending for that portion, it was not feasible to provide additional facilities there. However, the larger portion of the slum remained outside the scheme, leaving thousands of residents without adequate sanitation.
Thus, the petitioners approached the Court seeking directions to the municipal corporation and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to provide adequate toilet facilities, ensure proper maintenance, and uphold the fundamental rights of the slum dwellers.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that although the area in question is a slum on municipal land, it cannot be that the municipal corporation neglects such basic human needs of providing adequate sanitary/toilet facilities and fails in discharging its obligation under the MMC Act. Referring to High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corpn., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 386, the Court observed that even in slum areas, the corporation is required to cater to all basic requirements, including adequate toilets commensurate with the population and proper maintenance to safeguard hygiene and health.
The Court highlighted that neglecting toilets already constructed, which have become dilapidated over time, is a serious matter. It was noted that these toilets were built under funds made available by the Member of Parliament, yet only 60 toilets exist for a population of more than 4000, which by any standard is totally insufficient. The Court stressed that in the absence of any such policy, it would be the obligation of the municipal corporation or the State Government under any scheme to provide an adequate number of toilet blocks in slum areas.
The Court further observed that making adequate provisions for toilets and sanitation facilities concerns the basic human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was emphasised that once a large population of encroachers sets up residential and commercial settlements categorized as slums, it cannot be that the Municipal Corporation or the State Government would not recognise such slums and neglect their obligation to provide basic civic amenities, including sanitation and toilet facilities.
The Court directed the municipal corporation to identify open areas in the slum and construct more toilets commensurate with the population within two months. The Court also ordered the Municipal Commissioner to forthwith repair and maintain existing toilets, ensuring they are appropriate for use by slum dwellers. The Court mandated strict supervision by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner concerned, who must maintain records of cleanliness, hygiene, and repairs of toilet blocks in slum areas.
The Court observed that municipal officers cannot neglect or breach such basic rights of citizens living in unhygienic conditions in slums situated on municipal and Government lands. It was emphasised that the Municipal Commissioner must not only provide appropriate toilet blocks but also ensure their upkeep and daily maintenance, with strict supervision by the concerned Assistant Municipal Commissioner, who must maintain records of cleanliness, hygiene, and repairs. Any breach of such obligations, the Court held, would amount to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Lastly, the Court referred to Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 81, wherein it was observed that public health is of paramount importance and that clean public toilets contribute significantly to the health and overall well-being of society.
In light of these observations, the Court disposed of the petition with no order as to costs. The Court further held that the pending interim application would not survive and accordingly stood disposed of.
[Chetan Samajik Pratishthan v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai, Writ Petition No. 4225 of 2024, decided on 03-02-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G. S. Kulkarni
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Pradeep Thorat with Ashish Gatagat with Shafi Shaikh and A.S. Shaikh,
For the Respondent: Pushpa Yadav, Jagdish Aradwad (Reddy), Sanjeev B. Deore with Arman Ansari & Rutuja Gholap i/b. Suchita Pawar,
Buy Constitution of India HERE
