Bombay HC seeks authorities' reply to PIL for adequate hygienic toilets for women along highways

The Bombay High Court on Monday issued notice seeking the response of central and state governments and National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to a PIL seeking direction to construct and maintain accessible and hygienic sanitation facilities for women along national and state highways.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a PIL by lawyer Kanchan S Chindarkar raising concerns over lack of sanitation facilities for women on Highways in the state.
The PIL claimed that the same gravely violates the fundamental right to life with dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It added that pregnant, menstruating and elderly women and girl students are disproportionately affected.
'Despite the Women's Policies of 2001 and 2014, and the Draft National Policy of 2016, along with the goals of Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, the State and Union instrumentalities have failed to implement these in practice — especially the clear mandate to provide toilets every 25 km as per Chapter 10 of the 2014 Policy,' the PIL argued.
The petitioner claimed that previous court verdicts have stated that sanitation is integral to the Right to Life and state authorities cannot evade their responsibility citing resource constraints.
The plea sought immediate steps for the construction, maintenance of accessible, safe and hygienic sanitation facilities for women at every 25 kilometres along national and state highways in Maharashtra.
It also sought a directive to authorities to provide details on the number of existing toilet facilities and their usability conditions and locations, and proposed an action plan including budget allocations for constructing new public toilets for women.
The PIL also sought periodic field surveys and audits within authorities to assess conditions of sanitation infrastructure along highways.
The bench also referred to a past HC order of December, 2015 in which directives were issued to provide hygienic sanitation facilities for women within the Municipal area.
It issued notice to respondents and posted the further hearing to July 7.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

Bombay HC dismisses 2 PILs against Lloyds Metals

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed two public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the grant of permission to the capacity expansion of the Surjagarh iron ore mines of Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd (LMEL) in Gadchiroli. While the PILs were quashed on May 9, the order copy was uploaded on June 19. The high court found both the PILs to be without merit. The PILs filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, a mining contractor from Raipur, Chhattisgarh, alleged that the process of environmental clearance (EC) granted by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for expansion of mining capacity from 3 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 10 MTPA and further Terms of Reference (ToR) towards expansion from 10 MTPA to 26 MTPA were 'illegal'. The division bench comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri observed that 'the complete procedure based on the ToR is followed,' and found that both the PILs were devoid of merit. The petitioner also alleged that the public hearing was conducted at a place far away from the project site. The court observed, 'The fact remains that in compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment notification dated May 29, 2006, as amended on December 01, 2009, a public hearing was conducted at the [Gadchiroli] District Headquarters, which is perhaps properly secured in view of the Naxal menace.' The counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi, and since he never attended the public hearing conducted by the collector at the district headquarters, he lost the opportunity to question the legality of the orders impugned in these PILs. Further, the counsel submitted that the initial EC was granted in 2005-06 after the hearing conducted by the collector at the very same place, and the said hearing was never questioned by the petitioner for the last 20 years. The counsel added that the EC for 10 MTPA was issued by the MoEF&CC under strict compliance with and adherence to the provisions of the EIA Notification dated May 29, 2006 and the SOP issued by the ministry. Though the public hearing was conducted at Gadchiroli district headquarters on the recommendation of the Police Department as the project site fell within the Naxal-affected area, all the locals were given due opportunity to present their say on the mining project, the court observed. The high court further stated that the courts should be sensitive and careful to the fact that the petitioner should not be allowed to indulge in making wild and reckless allegations. Since the petitioner stated that his annual income was Rs 4-5 lakh, the court observed, 'We fail to understand as to what is the source of expenses incurred by the petitioner as there is a serious doubt about his bona fides also'. With due observations, the high court dismissed both the PILs without costs.

Time of India

4 hours ago

• Time of India

Telangana HC pulls up govt over delay in opening Alampur govt hospital

Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Friday came down heavily on the state govt for the 18-month delay in operationalising a 100-bed govt hospital in Alampur, Jogulamba Gadwal district , despite the facility being fully constructed and equipped. A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing a PIL filed by Ramchandra Reddy, a social activist and politician from the district. The court expressed concern over the prolonged inaction and directed the govt and relevant departments to file a detailed counter-affidavit within two weeks, explaining the reasons for the delay. The petitioner informed the court that the hospital was built with ₹21 crore sanctioned in 2021, and construction was completed by Oct 2023. However, despite being fully equipped, the hospital has not been made operational. He added that the unused building is now lying vacant and vulnerable to misuse by anti-social elements. Highlighting the demographic and social context, the petitioner noted that Alampur is an SC reserved constituency, home to a large population from Dalit and Backward Classes communities. The absence of a functioning public hospital, he argued, violates residents' fundamental right to health , as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Due to the non-functional hospital, locals are reportedly forced to travel long distances-to Kurnool, Gadwal, or even Hyderabad-for basic medical care. Taking note of these submissions, Justice Sujoy Paul observed that despite constructing a 100-bed hospital, the state had neither appointed staff nor operationalised services, leaving costly equipment idle and unutilised. The case will be taken up for further hearing after the state submits its explanation.

Time of India

5 hours ago

• Time of India

Wife's WhatsApp chats obtained via 'spy app' used as valid evidence about her extramarital affair in Divorce case, what Madhya Pradesh HC said

In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court's decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce. The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife's phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife's legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice. The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife's right to privacy and the husband's right to a fair trial. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. 'A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,' the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act's intent. The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband's case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.