{"id":376902,"date":"2026-02-26T16:30:37","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T11:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=376902"},"modified":"2026-03-06T09:20:02","modified_gmt":"2026-03-06T03:50:02","slug":"del-hc-right-to-live-with-dignity-in-hygienic-environment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/del-hc-right-to-live-with-dignity-in-hygienic-environment\/","title":{"rendered":"Right to live with dignity includes hygienic environment: Delhi HC orders demolition of open garbage bin and urinal near residential property"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition raising concern regarding construction and continued existence of an unauthorised open garbage bin and a public urinal next to the petitioner’s house, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J., held that presence of a public urinal and an open garbage bin right next to the petitioner’s house clearly violates his right to live with dignity in a hygienic environment. The Court directed the MCD to demolish the same and arrange proper covered dustbin for dry and wet waste to be kept at a distance from the petitioner’s property.<\/p>\n

The petitioner, an advocate raised concern regarding existence of an unauthorised open garbage bin and a public urinal on the eastern wall of his property being used by nearly 150 persons in the neighbourhood for dumping waste and for urination. Photographs were placed on record to demonstrate the “existing state of affairs.” It was contended that despite making several representations to the concerned authorities requesting that sanitary conditions be maintained and the nuisance be removed, no effective action was taken.<\/p>\n

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), in its status report, stated that regular inspection and cleaning work was being carried out in respect of the urinal. A joint inspection had also been conducted pursuant to an earlier order of the Court to explore relocation; however, the alternative site suggested by the petitioner was found to be infeasible. The petitioner, in rejoinder, contended that the locality was residential and every household was expected to have its own toilet, and further that under the Solid Waste Management Rules the garbage was required to be collected from individual houses.<\/p>\n

The Court empathised with the petitioner as well as other residents and observed that the presence of the open garbage bin and public urinal was “undoubtedly a nuisance” to the residents and that it resulted in stench and constrained them “to live in such a deplorable condition.” It observed that “one of the integral aspects of a healthy life is hygienic environment”<\/span> and that the absence of such an environment would frustrate the right to live with dignity.<\/p>\n

Placing reliance on State of M.P.<\/span> v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.<\/span>, (2003) 7 SCC 389<\/a> and Chameli Singh<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (1996) 2 SCC 549<\/a>, the Court held that the “presence of a public urinal and an open garbage bin right next to the petitioner’s house clearly violates his right to life guaranteed under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, which includes right to live with dignity in a clean and healthy environment.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the MCD —<\/p>\n