Ensuring Breastfeeding and Childcare Facilities in Public Spaces as a Fundamental Right

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Maatr Sparsh An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India (2025 INSC 302) marks a significant step forward in asserting the rights of nursing mothers and infants. The petitioner, a non-governmental organization, approached the Court via a writ petition to demand the provision of safe, private, and dignified feeding and childcare rooms in public places. The central Government had issued advisories in this regard, but the petitioner sought stronger directions from the Court to ensure concrete implementation. The key parties in the case were the petitioner NGO and the Union of India ("the respondents"), with notices to other State Governments and authorities ultimately becoming pivotal in complying with the new directives.

At the core of this case lay the question of whether nursing mothers have a fundamental right to breastfeed in a safe and private environment, and if the State bears an obligation to provide facilities that uphold this right. Drawing on constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and international human rights instruments, the Court laid down comprehensive directions that have broad implications for women and children across India.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that breastfeeding and adequate childcare facilities are encompassed under the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India—particularly under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and reinforced by Articles 14, 15(3), and other directive principles. Recognizing that the Union Government had already issued an advisory dated 27 February 2024 directing all States and Union Territories to provide gender-friendly spaces in workplaces and public buildings, the Court mandated a stronger implementation of these directives.

The Court instructed the Union of India to send a reminder communication to all Chief Secretaries/Administrators of States and UTs, enclosing copies of this order to underline the binding nature of setting up nursing and childcare rooms. While acknowledging that some States may already have taken measures, the Court stressed that all States should implement the facilities in a time-bound manner, not only in existing public places but also in new infrastructural projects at the planning and construction stages. The Judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with directions to ensure compliance within two weeks of receiving the order.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

The Court relied upon several fundamental legal principles and precedents. Most notable were:

• Constitutional Provisions: Articles 14 (equality before law), 15(3) (special provisions for women and children), 21 (right to life and dignity), 39(f), and 47 (Directive Principles emphasizing the welfare of children and improvement of public health), and 51A(e) (duty of every citizen to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women). These provisions signaled the State’s responsibility to ensure that nursing mothers and their children have safe, healthy, and dignified conditions.
• National Food Security Act, 2013: The Court pointed out Section 5(a), which highlights ensuring nutritional support and endorses the need for exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infant’s life.
• Prior Litigation: The petitioner’s counsel highlighted a previous writ petition in the Delhi High Court, wherein the Union had committed to issuing advisories to all States and UTs for setting up baby-feeding rooms and childcare facilities. That petition served as a strong reference point for the instant petition, illustrating partial progress but underscoring the need for further enforcement.
• International Obligations: The Judgment drew extensively from international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the statements by UN Special Rapporteurs, to fortify the human rights perspective on breastfeeding.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s core legal reasoning centered on integrating constitutional rights with the actual measures that must be taken by public authorities to uphold the dignity and privacy of women. By deploying Article 21 and reading it together with Articles 14 and 15(3), the Court recognized that the right to breastfeed and the right of an infant to receive mother’s milk are inextricably linked. The State not only has a negative obligation not to hinder this right but also a positive obligation to facilitate and create safe environments for mothers and children.

Additionally, the Court underscored that the directive principles of state policy (particularly Article 39(f) and Article 47) are relevant for guiding governance and policy-making. Although not enforceable in the same manner as fundamental rights, these principles buttress the notion that the State must take proactive steps to ensure adequate facilities in both existing and newly planned public spaces. The articulation of these obligations transitions the Government’s advisories and policy frameworks into a more binding directive, enforceable by law.

c) Potential Impact

This Judgment is likely to have significant implications for the public and private sectors alike:

• Infrastructure and Policy Upgrades: The directive to establish feeding and childcare rooms in existing and future public spaces—including government buildings, bus-stations, universities, and so on—places an onus on the authorities to create gender-friendly facilities swiftly. Public Sector Undertakings and affiliated institutions will similarly be required to revise their infrastructure planning and budgeting to comply with the ruling.
• Greater Awareness of Women’s Rights: Beyond physical infrastructure, the Court’s recognition of breastfeeding as integral to the mother’s right to dignity and privacy will encourage a shift in societal attitudes, reducing stigmatization and increasing awareness of mothers’ rights.
• Harmonization of State Policies: Individual states may already have existing measures, but this Judgment mandates a uniform, countrywide standard, ensuring that all states work toward the same goal of adequate childcare and breastfeeding facilities.
• Precedent for Other Fundamental Rights Claims: The stress on a mother’s autonomy and privacy may open the door to further claims relating to the welfare of mothers and children, especially in situations where safe facilities and privacy rights are threatened or inadequately provided.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Fundamental Right to Dignity and Privacy: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life, which includes living with dignity. Here, “dignity” encompasses the freedom of a nursing mother to breastfeed without shame or stigma, and “privacy” includes the physical spaces required to feed an infant comfortably.

Article 15(3): This provision allows the State to enact special measures to protect and advance the interests of women and children. Hence, specific facilities favoring nursing mothers do not violate equality principles—they are empowered by the Constitution itself.

Directive Principles (Articles 39 and 47): These principles guide the government to protect and develop children’s health and provide an adequate standard of living. While not directly enforceable by the courts like fundamental rights, they inform major policy initiatives and help interpret fundamental rights in a more expansive manner.

International Instruments: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child place obligations on States to ensure children’s well-being and protect mothers. Although international treaties generally require domestic legislation to be enforceable, Indian courts often interpret domestic laws in harmony with these global standards.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s directive in Maatr Sparsh An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India crystallizes a crucial aspect of women’s and children’s rights: the guarantee of safe and dignified feeding and childcare facilities in public spaces. By declaring breastfeeding to be integral to a mother’s and child’s fundamental rights, the Court has underscored that effectively ensuring these facilities is not only a moral obligation but also a constitutional one. The Judgment aligns with India’s commitments under international law and bolsters existing policy initiatives and advisory guidelines. Moving forward, public institutions and private stakeholders will need to incorporate or upgrade facilities to comply with the Judgment’s directives, ultimately fostering an environment where women can fully and comfortably participate in public life while safeguarding the interests of their children.