Mainstream WeeklyThe Kerala High Court verdict interim order (Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., WP(C) No. 9329/2025) on 18th June which restricting public access to toilet facilities in petrol pumps has precipitated a significant public outcry in Kerala. However, the verdict is legally sound in upholding the private property rights against uncompensated burdens due to the public access. This reaction, while understandable, misdirects the critique towards the judiciary, whose role is adjudication based on existing law, but the outrage neglects the failure of the state to meet its commitment to deliver sufficient sanitary facilities in public places. However, Kerala High Court modified its earlier verdict on 13th august 2025 and directed that the toilet facilities in petrol pump in the state must remain open to the public in 24/7. It must be noted that sanitation is an intrinsic component of the fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, framing it as a necessity, and not a discretionary facility. Nevertheless, Kerala State has achieved a near-universal coverage in accessing household toilet facilities as reported by NITI AYOG in SDG reports, but significant problem remains in accessing a hygienic toilet facility in public places.
A significant regulatory tension is revealed by the legal ambiguity surrounding public access to toilet facility at Petrol stations. On the one hand, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways’ central directive (No. RW/NH-33023/19/99-DOIII, dated 26/12/2013) clearly requires that the petrol stations must provide the public 24/7 access to drinking water and toilet facility, which consider as an essential service tied to highway infrastructure. However, there are insufficient resources to guarantee adherence, inconsistent monitoring, explicit sanctions for non-compliance, and weak enforcement mechanisms. On the other hand, as part of their dealership agreements, public sector oil marketing companies (OMCs) primarily focus on maintaining clean, functional facilities within the petrol station premises as a condition of their dealership agreements. The guidelines, however, make no mention of any requirement for public access. There is a substantial regulatory gap because of this regulatory ambiguity, where the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) mandate facility standards without mentioning public access, while the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways mandates public access to sanitation facilities.
On a more superficial level, the high court verdict appears to be a conflict between the fundamental right to sanitation and private property rights. But at the critical sphere the issue transcends this conflict, by pointing towards the structural negligence by the State in discharging its core responsibility to provide essential public goods, safeguarding human dignity and health. Given the background, High Court verdicts cannot limit themselves to interpreting extant property law; they must explicitly acknowledge the pervasive systemic State failure enabling this problem and issue binding directives to compel corrective State action. However, mandating private entities like petrol pumps to provide free public sanitation facilities