Author: Rizul Sharma

CITATION:

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.950/2022, Supreme Court of India 

BENCH:

Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

19 February, 2025

RELEVANT KEY PROVISIONS:

Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty

Article 14 – Equality before law

Article 15(3) – Special provisions for women and children

Article 39(f) – Healthy development of children (DPSP)

Article 47 – Duty of the State to raise nutrition and improve public health

Article 51A(e) – Fundamental duty to renounce practices derogatory to dignity of women

Section 5(a), National Food Security Act, 2013

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Relevant international instruments:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25(2))

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 3, 7, 24)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Supreme Court by the petitioner, Maatr Sparsh, an NGO that aims to establish infant care centres and feeding rooms in public areas.

 The petition had been inspired by the personal experience of Advocate Neha Rastogi, one of its directors, who experienced both emotional and practical challenges when nursing her child as a result of inadequate feeding facilities in public areas. Because there were no special, respectable, and private areas for nursing, she was afraid to go out in public. 

In order to guarantee the protection of nursing mothers’ and infants’ fundamental rights, the petitioner requested a writ of mandamus ordering the Union of India and all States/Union Territories to build feeding rooms, child care centers, and comparable amenities in public areas.

The Court was also informed that a similar case had previously been heard by the Delhi High Court, where the Union claimed to have sent a letter on August 27, 2018, asking States to set up spaces for feeding and childcare. 

With anticipation that more facilities of this kind will be developed, the Delhi High Court dismissed that plea. A new notification from the Ministry of Women and Child Development to all States and Union Territories on February 27, 2024, asking them to establish gender-neutral areas including feeding rooms and crèches, was cited by the Union of India during the current proceedings.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the lack of feeding centres and child care facilities in public domain infringes the Rights of nursing mothers as well as the infants under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Whether the Supreme Court should issue mandatory directives to all States and Union Territories to install feeding and child-care facilities in public locations?
3. Whether the state has some obligation to create gender-neutral areas in public buildings and locations, like as feeding rooms and creche facilities?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:

PETITIONER:

• Denial of secure, private breastfeeding facilities outside the house significantly limits a child’s access to mother’s milk and is a breach of the child’s right to life and health. 
• Mothers have a constitutional right to dignity and privacy when breastfeeding; the lack of facilities restricts their ability to participate in public and economic life. 
• Mere advice without appropriate follow-up and monitoring result in inconsistent implementation; the Court should grant strong directive relief to guarantee consistent provision across states and PSUs. 
• Existing statutes and schemes (including Section 5(a) of the NFSA, Juvenile Justice Act provisions, and past governmental letters) show legislative and policy recognition, but enforcement gaps remain.

RESPONDENT:

• The Union Government has already issued advisory to states and union territories on gender-friendly spaces.
• The notification dated February 27, 2024, expressly supports the establishment of feeding rooms, bathrooms, crèches, and sanitary facilities in public buildings and places.
• The recommendation complies with Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution. States may get a directive to comply with the advise.

JUDGMENT:

The Court held that:

“Breast-feeding is an integral component of a child’s right to life, survival, and development to the highest attainable standard of health. It is an integral part of a woman’s reproductive process and is essential for the health and well-being of both mother and the child.”

The Court further observed that:

“As the right of a child to be breast-fed is inextricably linked with the mother, she also has the right to breast-feed her child. Consequently, this means that the State has the obligation to ensure adequate facilities and environment to facilitate mothers to breast-feed their children. Such a right and the obligation emanate from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the foundational principle of ‘the best interest of the child’…”

After considering the advisory dated 27.02.2024, the Court directed:

‘respondent no.1/Union of India that aforesaid advisory must be in the form of a reminder communication to the Chief Secretary/Administrator of all State Governments/Union Territories so that they can comply with the advisory given….’

It also observed:

“In the existing public places as far as practicable, the States/Union Territories should ensure that the aforesaid directions are given effect to.”

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The binding principle laid down by the Court is contained in the following words:

“As the right of a child to be breast-fed is inextricably linked with the mother, she also has the right to breast-feed her child. Consequently, this means that the State has the obligation to ensure adequate facilities and environment to facilitate mothers to breast-feed their children. Such a right and the obligation emanate from Article 21 of the Constitution of India…”

Further, the court held that the said advisory which has been issued by the Central Government is in accordance with the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India.

ORBITER DICTA:

The broader observations were made by the Court, wherein it was stated that it would not be wrong at that instance for the citizens of the nation to be reminded of their duty to “renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”, as enshrined in Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India.

It was further observed that, over and above the duty of the State to facilitate the exercise of the right of nursing mothers to breast-feed their children, it must be ensured by the citizens that the practice of breast-feeding in public places and at workplaces is not stigmatized.

CONCLUSION:

Hence, it can be concluded that the given case demonstrates that how the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the principles of natural justice and equity and expanded the scope of the provisions of the Constitution of India by giving it a liberal interpretation. The Court has considered the problems faced by the women while breastfeeding her child and hence gave directions to the government to make centres in the public for addressing the same and even in public offices etc. 

This has been done in order to protect the interests of the infants as well as the mothers. The Court expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by holding the Right to Breastfeed as a fundamental rights of the individual.