Kolkata’s decision to impose a Rs 200 fine for public urination from September 1 has placed a basic urban question at the centre of public debate: where can people go when they need a toilet during a long commute? Reporting from Salt Lake and New Town suggests that the problem is not simply a shortage of toilet structures. It is also about visibility, opening hours, cleanliness, safety, affordability, maintenance and whether facilities are located where people actually need them.
The fine is intended to discourage public urination and keep the city cleaner. But residents and workers interviewed in Salt Lake questioned whether enforcement can work without a reliable network of accessible public toilets. Sudhin Kumar Mitra of Karunamoyee B Block said the rule would be difficult to enforce unless toilets were available roughly every two kilometres, clearly marked and supported by signs leading people to them. His observation captures the central gap between a prohibition and the infrastructure needed to comply with it.
In several parts of Salt Lake, public toilets exist but are difficult to identify. Commuters told the report that many facilities blend into the surrounding built environment because they are painted the same blue as other buildings. Under the Metro viaduct between The Sonnet hotel and Indira Bhavan, messages warning people not to urinate have been painted repeatedly on the walls of slum homes. Residents said they have toilets inside the settlement but do not know of a nearby public toilet for outsiders. The result is a conflict between the needs of passers-by and the privacy and sanitation of people living beside busy public routes.
The issue is particularly visible among people who spend the day moving through the city. A ride-hailing driver reported driving without a passenger from Lake Town to the Sulabh toilet near Salt Lake’s CGO Complex because it was the only pay-and-use facility he knew. The trip cost him fuel and time, but he said he had no practical alternative. Public toilet attendants told the newspaper that most users were auto-rickshaw, rickshaw and app-cab drivers, while many other commuters waited until they reached an office or their home.
This pattern suggests that toilet access is not determined only by the number of facilities on a municipal list. A toilet may exist but still fail as public infrastructure if people cannot find it, reach it during operating hours, afford repeated use or trust its condition. In Salt Lake, some corporation-run toilets were described by attendants as under-used. The explanation offered by attendants was not necessarily that demand was absent, but that people either did not know where the facilities were or preferred to avoid them.
Cleanliness is a major part of that decision. Women interviewed for the report described planning journeys around access to toilets, reducing their water intake or avoiding public facilities because of wet floors, dirty seats, inadequate supplies, broken doors and the prevalence of Indian-style toilets. One resident said she avoided drinking coconut water from street vendors because it could disrupt her toilet planning. Another said she drank less water before travelling by bus to Durgapur because roadside toilets were too dirty to use.
These accounts show that the public toilet problem is also a gendered mobility issue. Men may appear to be the dominant users because they are more willing or able to use facilities that women avoid. Attendants estimated a male-to-female user ratio of about 10:1. That figure, however, does not establish that women have less need for public toilets. It may instead reflect the conditions under which facilities are provided. A toilet without reliable cleanliness, privacy, lighting, a functioning lock or suitable fixtures effectively excludes users who cannot take the same risks as others.
The problem extends beyond dedicated toilet blocks. In Falguni Market, a single toilet outside the market complex was reportedly overused by nearby slum residents and became unusable after prolonged maintenance problems. Shopkeepers said workers, including women employed at a beauty parlour, had no dependable toilet during shifts. Some staff members were forced to go behind deserted buildings in groups, with one person keeping watch. In a planned township, the absence of a functioning facility therefore affects not only hygiene but also workplace conditions and staff retention.
Market toilets in BJ Block and Purbachal were also described as being in poor condition, with leaks and cracks. In Sector V, a shopping outlet reportedly had no toilet for customers or staff, leaving workers dependent on a parking-lot facility used by drivers. A nearby restaurant required customers to eat there before granting access to its toilet. Such arrangements turn sanitation into a privilege attached to consumption rather than a basic service available to people moving through the city.
New Town offers a different approach, but the experience there also reveals the limits of a construction-led response. The New Town Kolkata Development Authority installed bright red pay-and-use toilets made from discarded shipping containers in 2021. Units were placed at locations including New Town Smart Plaza, the NKDA bus terminus, near PHE Tank No 1, Sonar Kella park and beside Central Mall near the Clock Tower. They are open from 9am to 10pm and charge Rs 5 per use.
The design was intended to make the facilities easier to spot. That addresses one weakness reported in Salt Lake, where toilets are difficult to distinguish from surrounding buildings. But visibility does not resolve affordability or maintenance. A toto driver told the report that paying each time was not feasible for someone who spends most of the day on the road. Another resident said a container toilet had a broken lock and was not clean when he used it. The units therefore demonstrate that a recognisable structure can still fail if its operating model does not match the people who depend on it.
Opening hours are another unresolved issue. Some New Town facilities close at 10pm, while a toilet in a park was reportedly never open during morning activities. A toilet near the Novotel crossing, built by Metro authorities, was waiting for the Orange Line Metro to open before becoming operational. In Salt Lake, residents said facilities connected to events or public spaces were sometimes opened only during fairs or major occasions. This creates a network that may exist on paper but disappears at the times and places when people need it.
The report also raises the question of who is responsible for keeping public toilets operational. Corporation-managed facilities, Sulabh-operated pay-and-use toilets, market toilets, park toilets, event facilities and Metro-linked units appear to fall under different institutional arrangements. Residents encounter the result as a single urban system, but maintenance and access may be divided among several agencies and operators. When a lock breaks, a facility is closed or a toilet becomes unsafe, users may not know whom to approach.
Sanjay Singh, a site in-charge associated with Sulabh International toilets, said toilet sites were selected through government surveys identifying crowded areas or locations frequently affected by public urination. He also argued that some toilets become paan and gutka shops or are used as dens of anti-social activity when citizens do not use them. His proposed solution included allowing attendants to live in toilet complexes so that facilities could remain open around the clock and be protected from misuse.
That account points to a policy tension. Authorities may measure provision by the number of toilets built, while users judge the system by whether a clean, safe and open facility is available at the moment of need. The two measures are not interchangeable. A facility can be counted as an asset while remaining unusable because it is locked, unmarked, unaffordable, poorly maintained or located too far from a transport interchange, market, workplace or park.
The Rs 200 fine makes this distinction more important. Enforcement can address behaviour in public spaces, but it cannot by itself create access. If the cost of a toilet is repeatedly unaffordable, if a woman cannot use it safely, if a worker cannot leave a workplace or if a commuter cannot find the facility, the penalty does not solve the underlying service gap. It may instead shift responsibility to individuals without making the urban system easier to navigate.
The evidence from Salt Lake and New Town does not establish that there are no public toilets. It establishes something more specific: the presence of toilets is uneven, their condition varies, their opening hours are inconsistent and many users do not regard them as dependable. The most affected people include those without offices, homes or commercial establishments along their route—drivers, informal workers, market staff, slum residents, visitors and commuters.
The larger urban question is whether public sanitation is being planned as a connected mobility and public-health service or as a collection of isolated structures. Signage, location, universal access, maintenance, operating hours, pricing and accountability determine whether a toilet functions as infrastructure. The experiences recorded in Salt Lake and New Town show that a city can build facilities and still leave people with nowhere reliable to go.
The immediate developments to monitor are the enforcement of the fine, the operation and maintenance of existing public toilets, the opening of the Metro-linked facility near Novotel, and whether authorities improve signage and access in areas identified as vulnerable to public urination. Until those conditions change, the central contradiction will remain: the city can penalise people for using public space as a toilet without yet providing a public toilet system that residents consistently trust and can use.
