Authored By: Inayat Rehmani
The Glocal University , Saharanpur
CASE NAME: MAATR SPARSH AN INITIATIVE BY AVYAAN FOUNDATION V. UNION OF INDIA
DATE OF THE CASE: 19 February 2025
CASE NUMBER: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 950 of 2022.
PETITIONER: Maatr sparsh an initiative by Avyaan foundation (NGO)
RESPONDENT: Union of India.
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V.Nagarathna
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
CITATION: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1772: 2025 INSC 302.
IMPORTANT SECTIONS AND PROVISIONS:
Article 21 of the constitution of India.
Article 14 of the constitution of India.
Article 15(3) of the constitution of India.
Article 51A (e) of the constitution of India.
National Food Security Act, 2013.
Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of children) Act, 2015.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case of Maatr Sparsh – An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India & Others was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner, Maatr Sparsh, is a social initiative run by Avyaan Foundation, an NGO working for the welfare of women and children, especially focusing on maternal health and dignity.
The case arose due to the practical difficulties faced by mothers while breastfeeding or taking care of infants in public places. One of the founders of the initiative personally experienced the problem of not being able to find a safe, clean, and private place to breastfeed her child when she was outside her home. This personal experience reflected a much larger issue faced by millions of women across the country.
The petitioner pointed out that most public places in India such as railway stations, bus terminals, airports, courts, government offices, malls, and public parks do not have proper breastfeeding rooms, childcare rooms, or crèche facilities. Because of this, mothers are often forced to either breastfeed their babies in uncomfortable and unhygienic conditions or avoid going out in public altogether. In many cases, women are made to feel embarrassed or ashamed for feeding their babies in public spaces.
The petition highlighted that breastfeeding is a natural biological process and essential for the health and development of an infant. However, due to the absence of proper facilities, mothers face emotional stress, physical discomfort, and social stigma. This situation not only affects the mother’s dignity but also negatively impacts the child’s right to proper care and nutrition.
The petitioner argued that such conditions violate the fundamental rights of women and children, especially the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was also stated that women are placed at a disadvantage compared to men because the lack of childcare infrastructure restricts their movement and participation in public life. This amounts to gender discrimination, which goes against Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
The petition further stated that although the government has issued advisories and guidelines encouraging the creation of breastfeeding rooms and childcare facilities, these guidelines are not strictly implemented across all States and Union Territories. As a result, there is no uniform system in place, and the availability of such facilities depends largely on location.
Through this PIL, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to direct the Union of India and State governments to ensure the establishment of breastfeeding rooms, childcare rooms, and crèches in public places, so that mothers can care for their children with dignity, privacy, and comfort.
The case thus focuses on protecting the dignity of mothers, ensuring child welfare, and making public spaces more inclusive and gender-friendly.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether the absence of dedicated feeding and child-care rooms in public places violates the right to life and privacy of nursing mothers and infants under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Whether the State has a positive constitutional obligation to provide gender-friendly spaces such as feeding rooms and crèches in public buildings and places?
Whether the advisory dated 27.02.2024 issued by the Ministry is sufficient to satisfy constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 15(3) and the Directive Principles of State Policy?
What directions should be issued to the Union and State Governments to ensure uniform availability, accessibility, and proper maintenance of feeding and child-care facilities across the country?
CONTENTIONS:
ON THE BEHALF OF PETITONER
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is not confined to mere survival but includes the right to live with dignity, privacy, health, and basic hygiene. Denial of essential facilities required for breastfeeding and child care in public places directly infringes these constitutional protections.
It was contended that breastfeeding is a natural and essential biological function which is critical for an infant’s health, nutrition, and overall development. The absence of safe, clean, and private breastfeeding facilities outside the home effectively restricts a child’s access to mother’s milk, thereby violating the child’s right to life and right to health under Article 21.
The petitioner further argued that mothers have a constitutional right to dignity and privacy while breastfeeding and the lack of appropriate facilities forces women to either endure humiliation and discomfort or withdraw from public and economic life. Such conditions place a disproportionate burden on women and amount to gender-based discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
It was emphasized that nursing mothers constitute a vulnerable group requiring special protection and affirmative support from the State. The State therefore has a higher duty of care towards them, and fundamental rights do not cease to exist merely because women step into public spaces.
The counsel also submitted that although the government has issued advisories and policy guidelines, including the advisory dated 27.02.2024, these measures lack effective enforcement, monitoring, and accountability. As a result, implementation remains inconsistent across States, Union Territories, and Public Sector Undertakings, making mere advisories insufficient to satisfy constitutional mandates.
Lastly, the petitioner pointed out that existing statutes and welfare schemes such as Section 5(a) of the National Food Security Act, provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, and prior governmental communications clearly recognize the importance of maternal and child nutrition and care. However, persistent gaps in implementation continue to exist, thereby justifying judicial intervention and the issuance of binding directions to ensure uniform availability and proper maintenance of breastfeeding and child-care facilities across the country.
ON THE BEHALF OF RESPODENT
The counsels appearing for Respondent No.1, the Union of India, submitted that the Union Government has already taken adequate steps by issuing relevant advisories, including the D.O. Recommending 27.02.2024, which recommends the creation of gender-friendly spaces and the establishment of crèche and feeding facilities in public places. It was argued that the States and Union Territories are expected to act upon these advisories in accordance with their administrative framework.
It was further contended that the implementation of such facilities is primarily an administrative matter and falls within the domain of executive policy. The respondent submitted that judicial intervention by way of additional mandatory directions may not be necessary, particularly where the States and Union Territories are already in the process of complying with the advisory issued by the Union Government.
The counsel also submitted that while it may be feasible to reserve space for feeding and child-care facilities in public buildings that are currently under planning or construction, existing buildings present logistical, structural, and financial constraints. Such practical considerations, it was argued, are best addressed through administrative decision-making rather than through judicial mandates.
RATIONALE
The Court recognized breastfeeding as essential to a child’s survival and development and linked it to a woman’s reproductive role. Relying on medical expert recommendations and Section 5(a) of the National Food Security Act, 2013, the Court held that the right to breastfeed forms part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It observed that infant health cannot be separated from the mother’s dignity and social participation. The Court relied on Directive Principles and international instruments to stress the State’s duty to support breastfeeding. Finding the 27.02.2024 advisory adequate, the Court directed its implementation and disposed of the petition.
DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT
Communication:
The Union will issue reminders to the Chief Secretaries and Administrators of all States and Union Territories, attaching a copy of the Court’s order. These communications will request States/UTs to take appropriate action in line with the advisory dated 27.02.2024.Implementation in Existing Public Spaces:
States/UTs are encouraged to, wherever feasible; designate areas in existing public buildings as child-care or nursing rooms. These areas should provide a safe, private, and comfortable environment for mothers and children.Planning for New Public Buildings:
For public buildings currently in the design or construction phase, sufficient space should be reserved in the building plan for child-care or nursing rooms. These spaces should be integrated into the overall layout to ensure accessibility and convenience.Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs):
Chief Secretaries and Secretaries (Women & Child Welfare) should instruct PSUs under their jurisdiction to provide dedicated rooms for child-care, feeding, and nursing. These facilities should meet basic standards of privacy, hygiene, and safety.Timeline for Action:
The Union shall issue these reminders and advisories to the States/UTs within two weeks from the receipt of the Court’s order. States/UTs and PSUs are expected to implement the advisory as promptly as possible.Monitoring and Compliance:
States/UTs should maintain records of implementation and periodically report progress to the Union for review and further guidance.
CONCLUSION:
The case underscores the critical need for institutionalizing gender-sensitive public infrastructure, particularly nursing and childcare facilities in public buildings. The Union of India has already issued advisories recommending States/UTs to implement such measures, emphasizing privacy, comfort, and dignity for nursing mothers. While judicial intervention may be limited to ensuring compliance, the responsibility primarily lies with the executive to translate policy into action.
INFERENCE:
The court recognizes the importance of women-centric facilities in promoting inclusive public spaces.
Existing advisories, if properly implemented, can achieve the intended objective without necessitating additional judicial directives.
The case reflects a shift toward preventive, policy-driven remedies rather than reactive litigation.
Planning authorities are now expected to incorporate childcare/nursing spaces proactively in building designs rather than retrofitting them.
The initiative by Avyaan Foundation highlights a progressive approach to gender equality in public infrastructure. By drawing attention to the absence of basic amenities for nursing mothers, the case strengthens the argument for mandatory implementation of child-friendly spaces in public buildings. The Union’s advisory, if effectively monitored, can serve as a model for harmonizing judicial guidance with administrative action, promoting both compliance and societal welfare.
REFERENCE(S):
Cases
Maatr Sparsh: An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 302 (India).
Statutes
The Maternity Benefit Act, No. 53 of 1961, §§ 11, 11A (India).
The Factories Act, No. 63 of 1948, § 48 (India).
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, No. 37 of 2020 (India).
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
National Food Security Act, 2013, §5(a).
Government / Policy Documents
Ministry of Women and Child Development, Gov’t of India, Advisory on Gender-Friendly Spaces and Nursing Facilities in Public Places (Feb. 27, 2024).
International Instruments
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948).
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
