HC: Breastfeeding inalienable constitutional right of a mom

Bengaluru: Breastfeeding is an inalienable constitutional right of a lactating mother and the right of the infant needs to be assimilated with the mother’s right, the Karnataka high court observed on Wednesday. It was disposing a batch of petitions filed by the biological mother and foster parents of a toddler.

“Breastfeeding needs to be recognised as an inalienable right of a lactating mother. Similarly, the right of the suckling infant for being breastfed too has to be assimilated with the mother’s right. Arguably, it is a case of concurrent rights; this important attribute of motherhood is protected under the umbrella of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is unfortunate that this pretty child for no fault remained unbreastfed, its lactating mother having had no access to it till now. In a civilised society, such things should never happen,” Justice Krishna S Dixit observed in his order.

While a Bengaluru resident had sought custody of her rescued baby boy, the foster parents from Koppal had sought directions to permit them to retain the child. The couple had also challenged the notice issued to them by the child welfare committee.

The child was born in a maternity home in Bengaluru in May 2020 but was stolen from the cradle by a psychiatrist who later allegedly gave it away to the Koppal couple by claiming it was their child born out of surrogacy. The psychiatrist had taken money from the couple. Police caught the kidnapper and traced the child to the couple’s home in Koppal town in May this year.

The judge rejected the contention of the foster mother’s counsel that his client should be permitted to retain custody of the child consistent with what Devaki Maa allegedly did to Yashoda Maa, as mentioned in Bhagavata, the revered Hindu purana espousing devotion to Lord Krishna. “It is bit difficult to countenance; no authoritative text of the episode is produced to show there was any dispute of the kind between these two women of grace from the era long gone by,” the judge observed. The judge dismissed another contention of the foster mother’s counsel that his client does not have any children whereas the genetic mother had two and therefore, the custody should be allowed to continue.

“Children are not chattel for being apportioned between their genetic mother and a stranger on the basis of their numerical abundance. The principle of distributive justice which intends to bridge the gap between ‘haves and have nots’ is not invocable, at least in this case. It is a matter of common knowledge consistent without experience that a genetic mother treats all her children as being an integral part of her body and soul, regardless of what the children do to her,” the judge observed.

Full report on www.toi.in