A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In Maatr Sparsh An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India & Others, the Supreme Court considered whether the State must take positive steps to provide nursing-friendly facilities (feeding rooms, child-care rooms, crèches and related amenities) in public buildings and places so as to protect the rights of breastfeeding mothers and infants.

The petition, filed in public interest, emphasised that absence of dignified, private spaces in public places infringes the right to life and health of infants and the privacy and dignity of mothers. The Court recognised breastfeeding as integral to the child’s right to life, survival and development and as part of a woman’s reproductive right.

Relying on Article 21, Directive Principles (Articles 39(f), 47), Articles 14 and 15(3) and international instruments (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNCRC and UN special rapporteurs’ joint statement), the Court found that the Central Government’s advisory dated 27.02.2024 already encapsulated the relief sought and directed the Union to convert that advisory into reminder communications to States/UTs and public sector undertakings, and to ensure planning norms reserve space for nursing/child-care rooms in new public buildings.

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to implement and disseminate the advisory.

Keywords: Breast-feeding; Right to life; Article 21; Feeding rooms; Child-care; National Food Security Act; Privacy; Gender-friendly spaces.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitioners are an NGO committed to creating feeding rooms and crèche/child-care facilities in public spaces to remove barriers that nursing mothers face when availing public infrastructure. The genesis of the litigation lies in lived experience: one of the NGO’s directors confronted practical difficulties in breastfeeding while outside home, which triggered advocacy for institutionalised facilities in public buildings and spaces. The petitioner acknowledged past governmental steps but maintained that implementation was inconsistent and inadequate across States/UTs and public spaces.

In response, the Union pointed to a 27.02.2024 communication by the Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, urging creation of gender-friendly spaces recommending sanitary pad vending machines, feeding rooms, creches where 50+ female employees are present and reserving space in new public buildings. The Centre treated the communication as an advisory to be executed by States/UTs.

The central legal question became whether judicial mandamus was required or whether the existing advisory sufficed, and whether the State’s constitutional obligations under Article 21 and Directive Principles demand positive provisioning and dissemination of facilities to protect the rights of nursing mothers and infants. The Court engaged international norms and public health evidence to situate breastfeeding as a constitutional concern and to frame State obligations in both rights and policy-terms.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner NGO seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents to construct feeding rooms, child-care rooms and other infant/mother facilities at public places. The petitioner’s director, Adv. Neha Rastogi, experienced practical hardships breastfeeding outside home and initiated advocacy for institutionalised feeding spaces. The petition noted governmental pronouncements and prior correspondence: in 2018 the Centre had written to States/UTs requesting feeding rooms and crèche facilities; in 2019 the Delhi High Court directed respondents to maintain existing feeding rooms and encouraged more such facilities.

Respondent No.1 (Union of India) produced the 27.02.2024 D.O. communication (Ministry of Women & Child Development) recommending gender-friendly facilities across Ministries, PSUs and public infrastructure, noting increases in female labour force participation and recommending creches in public buildings with 50+ female employees, sanitary pad vending machines, and allocation of space for feeding/rest/yoga rooms. The Union submitted that States/UTs should implement the advisory. Petitioner contended piecemeal action and lack of enforceable, uniform standards; that absence of private, dignified spaces leads mothers to avoid public life or breastfeed in insecure circumstances, impairing infant nutrition and maternal dignity. The petition sought specific, nationwide directions for constructing and maintaining nursing & child-care facilities in public places.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether absence of dedicated feeding/child-care rooms in public places violates the right to life and privacy of nursing mothers and infants under Article 21?

2. Whether the State has a positive obligation to provide gender-friendly spaces (feeding rooms, crèches) in public buildings and places?

3. Whether the 27.02.2024 advisory by the Ministry satisfies constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 15(3) and Directive Principles, or whether judicial mandamus is required?

4. What measures should the Union and State Governments be directed to take to ensure uniform availability and maintenance of such facilities?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:
i. Denial of safe, private facilities to breastfeed outside home effectively curtails a child’s access to mother’s milk and amounts to a violation of the child’s right to life and to health.
ii. Mothers have a constitutional right to dignity and privacy when breastfeeding; absence of facilities impairs their freedom to participate in public and economic life.
iii. Mere advisories without effective follow-through and monitoring lead to inconsistent implementation; the Court should issue strong directional relief to ensure uniform provision across States and PSUs.
iv. Existing statutes and schemes (including Section 5(a) of NFSA, Juvenile Justice Act provisions, and prior governmental letters) demonstrate legislative and policy recognition, but enforcement gaps persist.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent No.1/Union of India submitted that:
i. The Union has already issued relevant advisories — notably the 27.02.2024 D.O. recommending gender-friendly spaces and creche norms; States/UTs are expected to act upon it.
ii. Implementation is administrative and falls within the domain of executive policy; issuance of further judicial commands may be unnecessary if States comply with the advisory.
iii. Where public buildings are under planning, space may be reserved prospectively; existing buildings entail logistical/financial considerations best managed through administrative channels.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Court recognised breastfeeding as central to child survival and development and as part of a woman’s reproductive role; experts’ recommendations (exclusive breastfeeding for six months, continuation up to two years) were accepted and linked to Section 5(a) of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Court situated the right to breastfeed within Article 21 (life and personal liberty), observing that protection of infant health cannot be separated from the mother’s social and economic status. It drew upon Directive Principles (Articles 39(f), 47) and civic duties (Article 51A(e)) to stress the State’s and citizens’ roles in destigmatising public breastfeeding.

International instruments UDHR, UNCRC and a Joint UN Special Rapporteurs’ statement (17.11.2016) were invoked to underscore global recognition that States must protect, promote and support breastfeeding and prevent discrimination linked to breastfeeding. The Court noted that the Union’s 27.02.2024 advisory appropriately addressed the reliefs sought and therefore directed the Union to issue a reminder communication to Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all States/UTs attaching this order, requesting compliance. The Court further directed the Union to advise PSUs to set apart rooms for childcare/nursing and recommended that new public buildings reserve space for such facilities. The Union was directed to comply within two weeks of receipt. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The central legal holding is that the State has a constitutional obligation to facilitate breastfeeding by ensuring an environment and facilities that enable mothers to breastfeed with dignity and privacy. This obligation flows from Article 21 (as a component of the right to life, health and dignity), read with Articles 14 and 15(3) (equality and special protective measures for women), and reinforced by Directive Principles (Articles 39(f) & 47).

International human-rights instruments and authoritative expert recommendations support the interpretation that State policy must promote breastfeeding. The Union’s advisory of 27.02.2024 already encapsulated the necessary measures; accordingly, the Court required administrative action to implement and circulate that advisory.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed as guidance rather than rule that citizens must avoid stigmatizing breastfeeding in public and that employers, public functionaries and institutions should proactively create gender-friendly spaces. The bench noted economic and social gains from increased female labour force participation and recommended measures (sanitary pad vending machines, incinerators, feeding rooms, creches for workplaces with 50+ female employees) as best practices. The observations emphasised the interdependence of women’s workforce participation, infant health, and public infrastructure planning. These remarks, while influential, were not framed as binding legal doctrine.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Convert the 27.02.2024 advisory into reminder communications from the Union to Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all States/UTs attaching the Court’s order.

2. States/UTs should, insofar as practicable, implement the advisory in existing public places to ensure privacy and comfort for nursing mothers.

3. For public buildings in planning or construction stages, reserve sufficient space for child-care/nursing rooms in the design and layout.

4. Union to advise Chief Secretaries/Secretaries (Women & Child Welfare) to instruct PSUs to set apart separate accommodation/rooms for child-care, feeding & nursing.

5. Implementation timeline: the Union to comply with directions within two weeks of receipt of the order (for issuing reminders/advisories).

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment importantly recognises breastfeeding as a constitutionalised social right implicating both child health and women’s dignity. By treating the 27.02.2024 advisory as sufficient in substance and directing swift administrative follow-up, the Court calibrated judicial intervention to ensure implementation without micromanaging executive functions. This approach balances constitutional protections with separation of powers: the Court did not create prescriptive technical standards, but mandated dissemination and administrative action, thereby enabling uniform uptake across States and PSUs.

Practically, the judgment scaffolds a rights-based administrative framework for gender-friendly public infrastructure. Its reliance on health norms, NFSA §5(a) and international instruments strengthens legitimacy and may catalyse policy mainstreaming.

However, absence of explicit monitoring or enforcement mechanisms (benchmarks, periodic reporting, penalties for non-compliance) may limit effectiveness. Future litigation or administrative rule-making may be necessary to translate advisory recommendations into uniform national standards (dimensions, maintenance, staffing, accessibility, signage, sanitation and budgetary allocations) and to extend coverage to private large-scale public venues (transport hubs, malls). Nonetheless, the decision is a significant jurisprudential step: it embeds breastfeeding within Article 21 protections and directs actionable administrative steps to secure dignity and health for mothers and infants.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases / Instruments Referred

1. Maatr Sparsh An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India & Others, Writ Pet. (C) No. 950 of 2022, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1772 : 2025 INSC 302.

2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A (Dec. 10, 1948).

3. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.

4. Joint Statement by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food, Right to Health, Working Group on Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (Nov. 17, 2016) (on promoting, supporting and protecting breastfeeding).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 21, 14, 15(3), 39(f), 47, 51A(e).

2. National Food Security Act, 2013, §5(a).

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