Introduction:
In Chetan Samajik Pratishthan & Another v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others [Writ Petition No. 4225 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 6016 of 2025], the Bombay High Court delivered a constitutionally significant judgment reiterating that access to adequate sanitation and toilet facilities is not a matter of policy discretion or benevolence but a basic human right flowing directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life with dignity, and the Court made it abundantly clear that this obligation extends equally to slum areas, even when such slums are the result of encroachment on municipal land, as Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe were seized of a public-spirited writ petition highlighting the inhuman and appalling sanitation conditions prevailing in Buddha Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai, a densely populated slum area located entirely on land owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), where more than 4,000 residents were forced to depend on merely 60 toilet seats, many of which were broken, unhygienic, unusable, and completely inadequate to meet even the bare minimum standards of public health, human dignity, and constitutional governance, prompting the Court to examine whether municipal authorities can lawfully abdicate their statutory and constitutional duties merely because a settlement is unauthorised or because a slum rehabilitation proposal is pending for a fraction of the land.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, Chetan Samajik Pratishthan and another social organization, approached the Bombay High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the living conditions in Buddha Nagar, Govandi, were not merely substandard but outright violative of fundamental rights, as it was submitted that the slum spreads across approximately 1,83,000 square metres and accommodates a population exceeding 4,000 residents, including women, children, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities, yet the Municipal Corporation had provided only 60 toilet seats, a number that was shockingly disproportionate to the population and completely incompatible with any notion of public health or human dignity, and it was further argued that many of these toilet blocks were in a dilapidated state, lacked proper water supply, drainage, lighting, and regular cleaning, thereby forcing residents to either wait for hours, resort to open defecation, or use dangerously unhygienic facilities, exposing them to serious health risks and indignity, especially women and children.
The petitioners highlighted that despite the issuance of a work order as far back as 2019 under the Slum Sanitation Programme for construction and improvement of toilet facilities, no effective steps were taken by the authorities for repair, maintenance, or augmentation of sanitation infrastructure, and this prolonged inaction amounted to gross administrative apathy and abdication of statutory duties under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as well as a direct infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and it was contended that the right to sanitation has long been recognised by constitutional courts as an inseparable facet of the right to life, health, and dignity, and cannot be denied on the pretext that the residents are encroachers or that the land is unauthorised, particularly when the Municipal Corporation itself owns the land and has permitted the slum to exist over decades without eviction.
It was further argued that the existence or pendency of a slum rehabilitation scheme for a limited portion of the land could not be used as an excuse to deprive the larger slum population of basic civic amenities, as fundamental rights cannot be placed in abeyance awaiting future development projects, and the petitioners stressed that sanitation is a non-negotiable constitutional obligation that demands immediate and continuous compliance, not sporadic or symbolic action, and accordingly sought directions to the Municipal Corporation to construct adequate toilet blocks proportionate to the population, ensure proper maintenance, and institute effective supervision mechanisms to uphold hygiene, public health, and human dignity.
Arguments on Behalf of the Municipal Corporation and the State:
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, while responding to the petition, sought to explain the existing situation by pointing to administrative constraints, planning challenges, and the complexities involved in providing infrastructure in densely populated slum areas, and it was suggested that certain portions of the land were covered by proposed slum rehabilitation schemes, which allegedly restricted the scope for construction of permanent sanitation facilities, and it was also contended that steps had been initiated under various schemes including the Slum Sanitation Programme, and that the Corporation was not entirely oblivious to the needs of the residents.
However, the submissions made on behalf of the Corporation did not dispute the basic factual position regarding the population size, the number of toilet seats available, or the poor condition of existing facilities, and while an attempt was made to suggest that encroachments and unauthorised occupation posed limitations on civic planning, the Corporation did not deny its ownership of the land nor its statutory authority under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, to provide basic amenities even in slum areas, and the State authorities broadly echoed these submissions, without offering a concrete or time-bound plan to address the severe sanitation deficit highlighted in the petition.
Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:
After considering the pleadings, factual material, and the constitutional and statutory framework, the Bombay High Court came down heavily on the Municipal Corporation for its failure to provide and maintain adequate sanitation facilities in Buddha Nagar, Govandi, and held that the grievance raised by the petitioners was not only genuine but revealed a disturbing picture of administrative neglect affecting the most basic human rights of slum dwellers, and the Court categorically held that access to toilets and sanitation is an integral component of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and also intersects with Article 14, as denial of such basic amenities results in arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of a vulnerable population.
The Court unequivocally rejected the argument that the unauthorised nature of a slum or its origin in encroachment could absolve the Municipal Corporation of its obligations, observing that once large populations reside in such areas, and particularly when the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation itself, the statutory and constitutional duty to provide civic amenities squarely rests on municipal authorities, and the Court made it clear that permitting encroachments to crystallize into slums over time cannot be followed by a plea of helplessness or inaction when it comes to public health and sanitation, as such an approach would amount to a direct assault on human dignity and constitutional governance.
The Bench observed in strong terms that providing only 60 toilet seats for a population exceeding 4,000 persons was grossly inadequate by any conceivable standard, and reflected a serious dereliction of duty on the part of municipal officers, and it emphasized that sanitation is not a matter of charity, concession, or convenience, but a binding constitutional obligation, and failure to discharge this obligation would amount to a breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21, and the Court further clarified that the pendency of a slum rehabilitation scheme for a small portion of land cannot justify neglect of basic amenities for the remaining and much larger slum population, as fundamental rights cannot be deferred or diluted by administrative planning processes.
In a particularly significant observation, the Court held that even in slum areas created by encroachment on municipal land, the Municipal Corporation retains full authority and responsibility under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, to provide sanitation facilities, and the existence of encroachments does not strip the Corporation of its powers nor relieve it of its duties, and the Court underscored that hygiene, sanitation, and public health are essential components of a civilized society and constitutional democracy, and any prolonged failure in this regard strikes at the core of the right to live with dignity.
Accordingly, the High Court issued clear and time-bound directions to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to immediately identify available open spaces within the slum area and construct additional toilet blocks commensurate with the population within a period of two months, and further directed that existing toilet blocks be repaired forthwith, properly maintained, and cleaned on a daily basis, with strict supervision by the concerned Assistant Municipal Commissioner, thereby ensuring that the directions were not merely declaratory but enforceable, and the Court made it evident that continued inaction would not be tolerated when basic human rights are at stake.